






i;^*-^'- 



§ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



©lap 



^X"¥3^ 



opFwl 



0*. 



Shelf ..IE.:^2 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

^::g7^^ 



V- 



^ 



^ 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES 



OP 



BAPTISTS. 



^ 



J. M. PENDLETON 






PHILADELPHIA : 
AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 

1420 CHESTNUT STREET. 



4-'^'^'^^ 



y^^^ 



^' 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 18S2, by the 

AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



Westcott & Thomson, 
^ereotypers and Electrotypers^ Philada. 



TO 



THE BAPTIST BKOTHEEHOOD, 



THIS VOLUME 



(WRITTEN IN ADVOCACY OF PRINCIPLES WHICH DISTINGUISH 
THEM FROM OTHER RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS) 



^tsp^cifullg anb "^iiztixonuUb ^zVuuU)i 



BY 



The Author, 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 
BAPTISTS REGARD THE BAPTISM OF UNCONSCIOUS INFANTS 



MEVERS IN CHRIST; AND OF BELIEVERS ALONE 11 

SECTION I. 

The account given of John^s baptism and of the personal 
ministry of Christ affords no justification of infant bap- 
tism 13 

SECTION II. 

The Commission given by the Saviour to his apostles just be- 
fore his ascension to heaven furnishes no plea for infant 
baptism... 17 

SECTION III. 
There is no instance of infant baptism on the day of Pente- 
cost, nor in Samaria under the preaching of Philip 21 

1* 5 



6 CONTENTS. 

SECTION IV. 

PAGE 

The argument from household baptisms in favor of infant 
baptism is invalid , .,.,. 25 

SECTION V. 
Certain passages in the New Testament supposed by some 
Pedobaptists to refer to infant baptism shown to have no 
such reference , 30 

SECTION VI. 

The allusions to baptism in the Apostolic Epistles forbid the 
supposition that infants were baptized 33 

SECTION VII. 

Tlie argument from the supposed identity of the Jewish Com- 
monwealth and the gospel church of no force 39 

SECTION VIII. 
The argument from circumcision fails 63 

SECTION IX. 
The historical argument examined 72 

SECTION X. 
Objections to infant baptism 80 

CHAPTEE 11. 

BAPTISTS CONSIDER THE IMMERSION IN WATER OF A BE- 
LIEVER IN CHRIST ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM— SO ESSENTIAL 
THAT WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO BAPTISM 90 



CONTENTS. 7 

SECTION I. 

PAGE 

Greek lexicons give "immerse," "dip," or "plunge" as the 
primary and ordinary meaning of baptizo 90 

SECTION II. 

Distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians admit that 
baptizo means "to immerse" 98 

SECTION III. 

The classical usage of baptizo establishes the position of Bap- 
tists 104 

SECTION IV. 

The design of baptism furnishes an argument in favor of the 
position of Baptists 113 

SECTION V. 
The places selected for the administration of baptism, and cir- 
cumstances attending its administration, as referred to in 
the New Testament, supply an additional argument in proof 
of the position of Baptists 121 

SECTION VI. 
History bears testimony to the practice of immersion, except 
in cases of sickness and urgent necessity, for more than 
thirteen hundred years 135 

SECTION VII. 
Pedobaptist objections answered 147 



8 CONTENTS. 

CHAPTEE III. 

PAGE 
BAPTISTS HOLD THAT, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURAL 

ORDER, PERSONS MUST COME FIRST TO CHRIST, AND THEN 

TO THE CHURCH AND ITS ORDINANCES.. 159 

SECTION L 
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration reverses this order 160 

SECTION II. 

The practice of infant baptism reverses this order 164 

CHAPTEE lY. 

BAPTISTS BELIEVE THAT A SCRIPTURAL CHURCH IS A LOCAL 
CONGREGATION OF BAPTIZED BELIEVERS INDEPENDENT, 
UNDER CHRIST, OF THE STATE AND OF EVERY OTHER 
CHURCH, HAVING IN ITSELF AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT- 
EVER A CHURCH CAN OF RIGHT DO 169 

SECTION I. 
A scriptural church a local congregation of baptized be- 
lievers , 170 

SECTION II. 
The Lord's Supper observed by local churches 174 

SECTION HI. 
Definition of church independence 182 

SECTION lY. 
Tlie churches of the New Testament received, excluded, and 
restored members 190 



CONTENTS. 9 

SECTION V. 

PAGE 

The churches of the New Testament appointed their officers.. 195 

SECTION VI. 
Church action is final 205 

SECTION VII. 
Superior advantages of Independency 211 

CONCLUSION 224 

INDEX 233 

INDEX OF SCKIPTUKES , 237 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES 

OP 

BAPTISTS. 



CHAPTER I 



BAPTISTS REGARD THE BAPTISM OF UNCONSCIOUS 
INFANTS AS UNSCRIPTURAL, AND INSIST ON THE 
BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS IN CHRIST; AND OF BE- 
LIEVERS ALONE. 

X)EFORE showing wherein Baptists differ from 
-■-^ other Christian denominations^ it may be well 
for me to say that in many things there is substantial 
agreement. 

As to the inspiration, and the consequent infalli- 
bility, of the word of God, there is no difference of 
opinion. The Bible Ls recognized as the supreme 
standard of faith and practice — that is to say, it 
teaches us what to believe and what to do. 

Salvation by grace is a doctrine which commands 

the cordial assent of all Christians. While "sin 

reigns unto death,'^ they rejoice that "grace reigns 

11 



12 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ our Lord/^ They expect through endless 
ages to ascribe their salvation to the sovereign grace 
of God. 

Justification by faith in Christ is a fundamental 
article of belief among all Christians. Acceptance 
with God on the ground of their works they know 
to be impossible, and they give the Lord Jesus the 
trustful reception which the gospel claims for him, 
and of which his person, character, and mediatorial 
work render him infinitely worthy. Christ is the 
object of their faith. 

Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is a Christian 
doctrine. To be ^^born of the Spirit'^ is an essen- 
tial part of salvation; for the subjects of this sec- 
ond birth become the children of God and heirs of 
heaven. They "put on the new man, which after 
God is created in righteousness and true holiness." 

With regard to these and kindred topics Baptists 
are in accord with other evangelical Christians; but 
there are points of difference. On these points Bap- 
tists hold views which distinguish them from Presby- 
terians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Lutherans, 
Methodists. These views they deem so important as 
to justify their denominational existence; and because 
they hold these views they are a people "everywhere 
spoken against." If, however, the distinctive princi- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 13 

pies of Baptists have their foundation in the word of 
God, they should be not only earnestly espoused, but 
maintained with unswerving fidelity. No truth taught 
in the Scriptures can be considered unimportant while 
the words of Jesus are remembered : " Whosoever 
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, 
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in 
the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and 
teach them, the same shall be called great in the king- 
dom of heaven ^^ (Matt. v. 19); ^^ Teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you" (Matt, xxviii. 20). 

SECTION I. 

The account given of John^s baptism and of the personal 
ministry of Christ affords no justification of infant 
baptism. 

In the third chapter of Matthew it is thus written : 
" In those days came John the Baptist, preaching 
in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye : for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand. . . . Then went out 
to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in 
Jordan, confessing their sins. But wlien he saw 
many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his 
baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, 
who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to 

2 



14 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repent- 
ance: and think not to say within yourselves, We 
have Abraham to our father : for I say unto you, 
that God is able of these stones to raise up children 
unto Abraham/^ 

From these verses we learn that John preached 
repentance; that those whom he baptized confessed 
their sins; and that descent from Abraham was not 
a qualification for baptism. There is nothing in the 
narrative that can suggest the idea of the baptism of 
impenitent adults or of unconscious infants. This is 
equally true of the account of John's ministry as 
given by the other three evangelists. 

Paul, in explaining John's baptism, says, ^^John 
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, say- 
ing unto the people, that they should believe on him 
which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus '^ 
(Acts xix. 4), Here it is plain that John required in those 
he baptized repentance and faith. They were not only 
to repent, but to believe in the coming Christ, for whom 
it was John's mission to '^prepare a people." There 
is not the remotest allusion to the baptism of any 
who either did not or could not repent and believe in 
Christ. Baptists, so far as the subjects of baptism are 
concerned, certainly imitate closely the example of 
John the Baptist. 

The disciples of Christ baptized no infants during 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 15 

his ministry. The only reference we have to the bap- 
tisms administered by them before the Redeemer's death 
and resurrection is in John iii, 26 ; iv. 1, 2, as follows : 
^^And they came unto John, and said unto him, Eabbi, 
lie that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou 
bearest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all 
men come to him f " When therefore the Lord knew 
how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and 
baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus 
himself baptized not, but his disciples/^ From the 
words quoted from the third chapter it would be 
thought that Jesus baptized personally ; but we have 
an explanation of the matter in the language of the 
fourth chapter. Baptism was not administered by the 
Saviour; but, as his apostles acted under his author- 
ity, he is represented as doing what they did by his 
direction. The fact, however, which deserves special 
notice is " that Jesus made and baptized more disci- 
ples than John.'^ There is a distinction between 
making and baptizing disciples. First in order was 
the process of discipleship to Christ, and then bap- 
tism as a recognition of discipleship. Could uncon- 
scious infants be made disciples? Manifestly not. 
Then, according to this passage, they were not eligi- 
ble to baptism ; for the inference is irresistible that 
none were baptized who had not first been made 
disciples. 



16 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

The oft-repeated verse, " Suffer little children, and 
forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the 
kingdom of heaven/^ does not justify infant baptism. 
For what purpose were these children taken to Christ ? 
That he should baptize them ? Evidently not ; for lie 
did not baptize. Were they taken to him that his dis- 
ciples might baptize them? If so, it is marvellous 
that the disciples rebuked those w^ho had charge of 
them. The preceding verse shows why these children 
were taken to Christ : " Then were brought unto him 
little children, that he should put his hands on them 
and pray : and the disciples rebuked them ^^ (Matt. 
xix. 13). There was a specific object in view. It 
was not that the "little children ^^ might be baptized, 
but that the Saviour might put his hands on them 
and pray. Who has the right to infer that these chil- 
dren were baptized, or that baptism was mentioned in 
their presence ? The sacred narrative is silent on the 
subject; and it may be said w^ith positive certainty 
that the New Testament, from the birth of John the 
Baptist to the death of Christ, says nothing concern- 
ing infant baptism. If, however, Pedobaptists should 
admit this, they would still insist — many of them, at 
least — that there is authority for their practice bear- 
ing date subsequent to the Redeemer's death and res- 
urrection. We shall see whether there is such 
authority. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 17 

SECTION II. 
The Commission given by the Saviour to his apostles just 
before his ascension to heaven furnishes no i^lea for in- 
fant baptism. 

The circumstances connected with the giving of 
tliis Commission were replete with interest. The 
Lord Jesus had finished the w^ork which he came 
down from heaven to accomplish. He had offered 
himself a sacrifice for sin. He had exhausted the cup 
of atoning sorrow. He had lain in the dark man- 
sions of the grave. He had risen in triumph from 
the dead, and was about to ascend to the right hand 
of the Majesty on high. Invested with perfect 
mediatorial authority, he said to his apostles, ^^All 
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go 
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world. 
Amen.'^ Mark records the same Commission thus : 
^' Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to 
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he tliat believeth not shall be 
damned.'^ Luke's record is this : " Thus it is writ- 
ten, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise 

2* 



18 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

from the dead the third day ; and that repentance and 
remission of sins should be preached in his name among 
all nations^ beginning at Jerusalem ^^ (Matt, xxviii. 18, 
19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, 16; Lukexxiv. 46, 47). 

Surely the language of this Commission is plain. 
Matthew informs us that teachinix — or makino; disci- 
pies; for the Greek verb means ^^to disciple ^^ or ^^to 
make disciples ^^- — is to precede baptism, Mark estab- 
lishes the priority of faith to baptism, and Luke con- 
nects repentance and remission of sins with the exe- 
cution of the Commission. No man can, in obedience 
to this Commission, baptize either an unbeliever or an 
infant. The unbeliever is not a penitent disciple, and 
it is impossible for an infant to repent and believe the 
gospel. 

It may be laid down as a principle of common sense 
which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind 
that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes 
only the doing of the thing or things specified in if. 
The doing of all other things is virtually forbidden. 
There is a maxim of law : Expressio unius est exclusio 
alterius,^ It must be so ; for otherwise there could be 
no definiteness in contracts between men, and no precis- 
ion in either the enactments of legislative bodies or in 
the decrees of courts of justice. This maxim may be 
illustrated in a thousand ways. Numerous scriptural 
^ ^' The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 19 

illustrations are at hand; I will name a few. God 
commanded Noah to build an ark of gopher-wood. 
He assigns no reason why gopher- wood should be 
used. The command, however, is positive, and it 
forbids the use of any other kind of wood for that 
purpose. Abraham was commanded to offer his son 
Isaac for a burnt-offering. He was virtually forbid- 
den to offer any other member of his family. Ay, 
more, he could not offer an animal till the original 
order w^as revoked by him who gave it, and a second 
order was given requiring the sacrifice of a ram in the 
place of Isaac. The institution of the passover fur- 
nishes a striking illustration, or rather a series of 
illustrations. A lamb was to be killed — not a heifer; 
it was to be of the first year — not of the second or 
third; a male — not a female; w^ithout blemish — not 
with blemish; on the fourteenth day of the month — 
not on some other day; the blood to be applied to the 
door-posts and lintels — not elsewhere. These illus- 
trations are all scriptural, but I may refer also to the 
Constitution of the United States. It says of the 
President: ^^ He shall have power, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, 
provided two-thirds of the senators present concur/^ 
This language in effect forbids the making of a treaty 
by the President alone, or by the President and the 
House of Representatives in Congress, or by the 



20 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

President and the Supreme Court. It pronounces 
invalid a treaty made by the President and a majority 
of '' senators present/^ for there must be " two-thirds/^ 
The Constitution declares that the House of Repre- 
sentatives ^^ shall have the sole power of impeach- 
ment/^ and the Senate ^' shall have the sole power to 
try all impeachments.'^ Here the Senate is as effect- 
ually inhibited from the ^^ power of impeachment'^ as 
is the House of Representatives from the power of 
trying ^^ impeachments.'^ Neither the President, the 
Supreme Court, nor the Senate can impeach, but the 
House of Representatives alone. The President, the 
Supreme Court, and the House of Representatives 
coQibined cannot '' try impeachments/' but the Senate 
alone. 

In application of the principle laid down and of the 
law-maxim illustrated, I affirm that the Commission 
of Christ to the apostles, in requiring them to baptize 
disciples — believers — forbids, in effect, the baptism of 
all others. It will not do to say that we are not for- 
bidden in so many words to baptize infants. The 
same may be said of unbelievers, and even of horses 
and sheep and bells. 

This examination of the Commission fully author- 
izes me to say that it furnishes no plea for infant bap- 
tism. But it will be said — for it has been said a thou- 
sand times — that if infants are not to be baptized 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 21 

because they cannot believe, they cannot, for the same 
reason, be saved. If tlie salvation of infants depends 
on their faitli, they cannot be saved. Tliey are inca- 
])able of faith. They are doubtless saved through 
the mediation of Jesus Christ, but it is not by faith. 
Tlie opponents of Baptists signally fail to accomplish 
tlieir purpose in urging this objection to our views. 
They intend to make us concede the propriety of 
infant baptism or force us to a denial of infant sal- 
vation. But we make neither the concession nor the 
denial. As soon as ^ve say that infants are not saved 
by faith, but without faith, their objection is met and 
demolished. 

SECTION III. 

There is no instance of infant bajMsm on the day of Pente- 
cost, nor in Samaria under the preaching of Philip, 

The day of Pentecost was a memorable day. Forty 
days after his resurrection Jesus had ascended to heav- 
en. Before his ascension, however, he gave his apostles 
express command to tarry at Jerusalem till endued with 
power from on high. This power was received, in 
connection with their baptism in the Holy Spirit, on 
the day of Pentecost. They were copiously imbued 
with the Spirit — placed more fully under his influence 
than ever before. All things whatsoever Jesus had 
said to them were brought to their remembrance. 
They were required for the first time to show their 



22 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

understanding of the Commission of their ascended 
Lord. How did they understand it? How did they 
execute it? First, the gospel was preached. Peter 
in his great sermon proved Jesus to be the Christ, and 
derived his proof from the Old-Testament Scriptures. 
Then he charged his hearers with the crime of cruci- 
fying the Lord of glory. The people were pierced to 
the heart, and said, '' Men and brethren, w^iat shall we 
do ?'^ It was an important question, asked for the first 
time after the apostles received their world-wide Com- 
mission. The answer is in these words : ^' Then Peter 
said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of 
you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and 
to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
God shall call ^' (Acts ii. 38, 39). No one says that the 
command ^^ Repent ^^ is applicable to infants, and it is 
certain that the injunction ^^Be baptized ^^ has no 
reference to them; for it is as clear as the sun in 
heaven that the same persons are commanded to 
repent and be baptized. Then too it ought to be 
remembered that it would not be rational to address 
a command to unconscious infants. It is supposed by 
some, however, that the words "the promise is to you 
and to your children" refer to infants. The term "chil- 
dren,^^ however, evidently means " posterity ;" and the 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 23 

promise cannot be divested of its relation to the Holy 
S|)irit. This promise was not only to the Jews and 
their posterity, but to Gentiles. The latter are referred 
to in the words '' to all that are afar off/^ This re- 
striction is laid upon the promise "Even as many as 
the Lord our God shall call/' Whether the word 
"calP' is used in its general sense, as in Prov. viii. 4, 
"Unto you, O men, I call,'' or in its special sense, as 
in 1 Cor. i. 24, "But unto them which are called, both 
Jews and Greeks,'^ it is in either case inapplicable to 
infants. 

Did any obey Peter's command "Be baptized"? 
It is written, " Then they that gladly received his 
word were baptized ; and the same day there were 
added unto them about three thousand souls'' (Acts 
ii. 41). The baptism was limited to those who glad- 
ly received Peter's word; and, as infants were not of 
that number, to infer that they were baptized is utter- 
ly gratuitous. There is nothing in the Pentecostal 
administration of baptism which intimates that infants 
were considered proper subjects of the ordinance. Let 
it not be forgotten that the converts on the day of 
Pentecost were the first persons baptized under the 
Apostolic Commission, and therefore we have in their 
baptism the first practical exposition of its true 
meaning. 

There is nothing like infant baptism in the account 



24 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES GF BAPTISTS. 

given of Philip's labors in Samaria. The reader can 
examine for himself the eighth chapter of the Acts 
of the Apostles. There it will be seen that Philip 
began to execute the Commission by preaching: he 
"preached Christ unto them.'' He doubtless remem- 
bered the words of the risen Redeemer : " Go ye into 
all the wcTrld and preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'^ 
The Samaritans " believed Philip preaching the things 
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus 
Christ ;" and what then ? It is said, '' They were bap- 
tized, both men and women." Here the Commission 
of Christ was practically expounded. Is there any- 
thing in the exposition which can suggest the idea of 
" infant dedication to God in baptism " ? Surely not. 
Philip's plan of operation was evidently uniform. 
Hence, when he fell in with the Ethiopian eunuch — 
as we learn from the latter part of the same chapter 
— he first ^^ preached unto him Jesus." The eunuch 
professed /a z^A in the Messiah. Then Philip baptized 
him. As /^ faith comes by hearing, and hearing by 
the w^ord of God" (Rom. x. 17), there must be preach- 
ing before faith, and there must be faith before baptism, 
because this is the order established by Christ in the 
Great Commission. Alas for those who invert this 
order ! 



. DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 25 

SECTION IV. 

The argument from household baptisms in favor of infant 

bajjtism is invalid. 

I will refer to these baptisms as they are recorded 
in the Scriptures. In the tenth chapter of the Acts 
of the Apostles there is an account of Peter's visit to 
Cornelius. He began at Csesarea to preach to Gentiles 
as he had before preached to Jews. He carried into 
effect the Great Commission in precisely the same way. 
The Holy Spirit accompanied the word preached, and 
Gentile believers for the first time "spoke with 
tongues and magnified God.^^ Then said Peter, 
^' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be 
baptized, w^ho have received the Holy Ghost as well as 
we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord.^^ Here w^as a household baptism, 
but there are things said of the subjects of this baptism 
that could not be true of speechless infants. One fact, 
however, settles the whole matter. In the second verse 
of the chapter it is said that Cornelius " feared God 
with all his house." Can infants fear God? 

The baptism of Lydia and her household at Phil- 
ippi is next in order. The narrative, as given in Acts 
xvi. 13, 14, 15, is as follows: "And on the sabbath 
we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer 
was wont to be made ; and we sat down, and spake 



26 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

unto the women which resorted thither. And a cer- 
tain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the 
city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us : 
whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto 
the things Avhich were spoken of Paul. And when 
she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, 
saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she 
constrained us.'^ No one denies that Lydia was a be- 
liever ; she was therefore a proper subject of baptism. 
But it is inferred by Pedobaptists that, as her house- 
hold was baptized, infants must have been baptized. 
This does not follow, for the very good reason that 
there are many households in which there are no 
infants. The probability — and it amounts almost to 
a certainty — is that Lydia had neither husband nor 
children. She was engaged in secular business— was 
" a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira,^^ w^hich 
was a considerable distance from Philippi. If she 
had a husband and infant children, is it not reason- 
able to suppose that her husband would have taken 
on himself the business in which she was engaged, 
letting her remain at home with the infant children ? 
She evidently had no husband with her ; for we can- 
not believe that she violated conjugal propriety so far 
as to reduce her husband to a cipher by saying '^ my 
house.'^ Nor can we believe that the sacred historian 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 27 

would have spoken of " the house of Lydia/' in verse 
40, if she had a husband. The most reasonable in- 
ference is that her household consisted of persons in 
her employ, that they as well as Lydia became 
Christian converts, and that they were the " brethren ^^ 
whom Paul and Silas " comforted '^ when, having 
been released from prison, they "entered into the 
house of Lydia.'^ Enough has been said to inval- 
idate Pedobaptist objections to the Baptist expla- 
nation of this narrative, and nothing more can be 
required. Pedobaptists affirm "that Lydia had infant 
children. Their argument rests for its basis on this 
view. On them devolves the burden of proof. They 
must prove that she had infant children. This they 
have never done — this they can never do. The nar- 
rative therefore furnishes no argument in favor of 
infant baptism. 

The same chapter (Acts xvi.) contains an account 
of the baptism of the jailer and his household. Here 
it is necessary to say but little ; for every one can see 
that there were no infants in the jailer's family. Paul 
and Silas " spake unto him the word of the Lord, and 
to all that were in his house." It is also said that 
the jailer rejoiced, " believing in God with all his 
house.'' Surely the word of the Lord was not spo- 
ken to infants; surely infants are incapable of believ- 
ing. It is worthy of notice that this record shows 



28 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

how Paul understood the Commission of Christ. He 
first spoke the word of the Lord, and when that word 
was believed, but not till then, was there an adminis- 
tration of baptism. 

It is only necessary to refer to the household of 
Crispus (Acts xviii. 8) to show what has just been 
shown — namely, that a man's house as well as him- 
self may believe on the Lord. It is not said in so 
many words that the family of Crispus was baptized, 
but it is said that he ^^ believed on the Lord with all 
his house.^^ No doubt the family was baptized, but 
faith in Christ preceded the baptism. 

In 1 Cor. i. 16, Paul says, ^^And I baptized also the 
household of Stephanas.^^ Will any one infer that 
there were infants in this family? This inference 
cannot be drawn, in view of what the same apostle 
says in the same Epistle (xvi. 15): "Ye know the 
house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, 
and that they have addicted themselves to the minis- 
try of the saints.^^ Infants could not addict them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints. It follows that 
there were no infants in the family of Stephanas. I 
am aware that to invalidate this conclusion an argu- 
ment from chronology has been used. It has been 
urged that, although infants were baptized in the fam- 
ily of Stephanas when Paul planted the church at 
Corinth, sufficient time elapsed between their baptism 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 29 

and the date of Paul's First Epistle to the church to 
justify the declaration, ^^ They have addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints/^ This argument 
avails nothing in view of the fact that the most lib- 
eral chronology allows only a few years to have inter- 
vened between the planting of the church and the 
date of the Epistle. 

Reference has now been made to all the household 
baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, and there 
is no proof that there was an infant in any of them. 
On the other hand, facts and circumstances are related 
w^hich render it a moral certainty that there were no 
infants in those baptized families. It will not do to 
say that ordinarily there are infants in households ; it 
must be shown that it is universallv the case. Then 
the household argument will avail Pedobaptists — not 
till then. But it cannot be said of all households that 
there are infants in them. Many a Baptist minister 
in the United States has baptized more households 
than are referred to in the New Testament, and no 
infants in them. It is said that more than thirty 
entire household baptisms have occurred in connection 
with American Baptist missionary operations among 
the Karens in Burraah. In view of such consider- 
ations as have now been presented, the reasonings of 
Pedobaptists from household baptisms are utterly in- 
conclusive. They cannot satisfy a logical mind. 

3* 



30 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

SECTION V. 
Certain passages in the New Testament supposed by some 
Pedobaptists to refer to infant baptism shown to have no 
such reference. 

Conspicuous among these passages is what Paul says 
in Rom. xi. of the " good olive tree ^^ and of the " wild 
olive tree/^ It is assumed that by the ^^good olive 
tree '^ is meant the " Jewish church-state/' This as- 
sumption requires another— namely, that the "wild 
olive tree ^' denotes a Gentile church-state ; but from 
the latter view the most earnest Pedobaptist recoils. 
The truth is there is no reference by the apostle to 
any " church-state," whether among Jews or Gentiles. 
Paul teaches in substance w^hat we learn from other 
parts of the New Testament — that the Jews enjoyed 
great privileges, which they abused ; in consequence 
of which abuse, the privileges were taken from them 
and given to the Gentiles. This is the teaching of 
Christ; for he said to the Jews, "The kingdom of 
God shall be taken froni you, and given to a nation 
bringing forth the fruits thereof'^ (Matt. xxi. 43). 

Why this kingdom was taken from the Jews w^e 
may learn from John i. 11 : " He came unto his own, 
and his own received him not." They rejected the 
Messiah who came in fulfilment of their own proph- 
ecies, and thus they surrendered the vantage-grouncj 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 31 

which they had occupied for centuries ; and the bless- 
ings of the gospel which they refused to accept were 
offered to, and accepted by, the Gentiles. In this way 
what Paul elsewhere calls " the blessing of Abraham ^^ 
was seen to "come on the Gentiles through Jesus 
Christ'' (Gal. iii. 14). The promise of the Spirit 
was received through faith ; for it was by faith that 
the Gentiles were brought into union w^ith Christ. 
We see, therefore, the force of Paul's language ad- 
dressed to a Gentile believer in Rom. xi. 19, 20: 
" Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off 
that I might be graffed in. Well ; because of unbe- 
lief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith." 
The reference to faith shows that there is no allusion 
to infants, who cannot believe. So it appears that the 
imagery of " the olive tree " affords neither aid nor 
comfort to the cause of infant baptism. 

Pedobaptists appeal with great confidence to 1 Cor. 
vii. 14 in support of their views. The words are 
these : " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by 
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
husband : else w^ere your children unclean ; but now 
are they holy." It will be seen on examination that 
there is not in this lano:uao:e the remotest reference to 
infant baptism. What are the facts in the case? Sim- 
ply these : The question was agitated at Corinth whether 
believing husbands and wives should not separate them- 



32 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

selves from their unbelieving partners. The idea was 
entertained — by some, at least — that aniunbeliever was 
" unclean ^' to a believer, even as^ under the Mosaic 
dispensation, a Gentile was ^^ unclean ^^ to a Jew. 
Paul corrects this false impression by showing that 
the unbelieving husband is sanctified — or, rather, has 
been sanctified — by the wife. The perfect tense is 
used — a fact ignored by Drs. Conant and Davidson 
in their revisions, but fully recognized by Dr. Noyes. 
Without entering into a critical discussion of the word 
" sanctified," I avail myself of the fact that the sanc- 
tification was such as to justify the continuance of the 
marriage-relation between the believing and the unbe- 
lieving partner: "else" — that is, if the sanctification 
did not remove the supposed " uncleanness " from un- 
believing parents — " were your children unclean, but 
now are they holy." As the verb translated " were " 
is in the present tense, it should be rendered " are :" 
"else your children are unclean, but now are they holy." 
The pronoun " your " deserves special notice. The 
apostle does not say their children — that is, the chil- 
dren of the believing and the unbelieving partner — but 
your children, the children of the parents who were 
members of the Corinthian church. It follows that 
the passage under review is intensely strong against 
infant baptism. It shows that the children of the 
members of the church sustained the same relation to 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 33 

the church that unbelieving husbands and wives did, 
and that if believing husbands and wives abandoned 
their unbelieving partners, then believing parents might, 
with the same propriety, separate themselves from their 
children. 

Perhaps the exposition of this passage given by a 
well-known Pedobaptist will be more satisfactory than 
mine. Rev. Albert Barnes says: "There is not one 
word about baptism here; not one alhision to it; nor 
does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. 
The question was not whether children should be bap- 
tized, but it was whether there should be a separation 
between man and wife where the one was a Christian 
and the other not. Paul states that if such a separa- 
tion should take place, it would imply that the mar- 
riage was improper ; and of course the children must 
be regarded as unci can. ^^ "^ 

Thus it appears that this passage — so often made the 
basis of Pedobaptist argument — affords no support to 
the theory or the practice of infant baptism. 

SECTION VI. 

The allusions to baptism in the Apostolic Epistles forbid the 

supposition that infants were baptized. 

Paul refers to tlie baptized as " dead to sin,^^ or, 
rather, as having *^ died to sin.^^ He asks, " How 

* Barneses Notes on First Corinthians, p. 133. 



34 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

shall we, that are dead to sin [that died to sin], live 
any longer therein ? Know ye not, that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 
into his death ?'^ (Rom. vi. 2, 3). What is meant by 
dying to sin cannot be exemplified in unconscious 
infants. In 1 Cor. xv. 29 we have these words : 
" Else what shall they do which are baptized for the 
dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then 
baptized for the dead?'^ The controverted phrase 
^' baptized for the dead,'^ occurring, as it does, in the 
midst of an argument on the resurrection, most prob- 
ably means " baptized in the belief of the resurrec- 
tion.'^ Such a belief cannot be predicated of infants. 
In Gal. iii. 27 it is wTitten, "For as many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.'^ 
These words cannot apply to infants, because they are 
incapable of putting on Christ. In Col. ii. 12 the 
record is, " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the oper- 
ation of God, w^ho hath raised him from the dead.'^ 
However true and consoling may be the doctrine of 
infant salvation, it is not true that infants are risen 
with Christ "through the faith of the operation of 
God.'' If, in 1 Tim. vi. 12, the language, "hast pro- 
fessed a good profession before many witnesses," refers 
to the baptismal profession, it is evident that such a 
profession cannot be made by those in a state of 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 35 

infancy. Dr. Davidson translates '' didst confess the 
good confession before many witnesses/^ which is 
strictly literal, for the Greek verb refers to past time. 
In Heb. x. 22 Ave find the expression ^^our bodies 
washed with pure water.^^ If there is in these Avords 
an allusion to baptism (and I think there is), it is plain 
that the same persons who were baptized had been set 
free from ^' an evil conscience.^^ No infant has '' an 
evil conscience.'^ 

Peter, in his First Epistle (iii. 21), defines baptism 
to be " the answer of a good conscience toward God 
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'^ This is a gen- 
eral definition, and it forbids the idea that baptism, 
in apostolic times, was administered to any but ac- 
countable agents. AVhat conscience has an infant? 
There is no operation of conscience before account- 
ability. Baptism, then, in its administration to in- 
fants, cannot be what Peter says it is. This is for 
Pedobaptists an unfortunate fact — a fact which shows 
their practice to be unscriptural. 

There is in this connection another thing worthy of 
consideration. Paul, in his Epistles to the Ephesians 
and Colossians, exhorts children to obey their parents. 
It is generally supposed that about five years inter- 
vened between the introduction of the gospel into 
Ephesus and Colosse and the writing of PauFs Epis- 
tles. Now, if those children, or any of them, had 



36 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

been baptized when the gospel was introduced into 
these cities, is it not strange that the apostle, in urg- 
ing upon them obedience, presented no motive derived 
from their dedication to God in baptism? There is 
no allusion to any ^S^ows, promises, and obligations^^ 
made and assumed for them by their parents or spon- 
sors at their baptism. There is nothing said that bears 
a resemblance to a personal acceptance of a draft drawn 
upon them in anticipation of their intelligence and re- 
sponsibility. Here a query may be presented : Would 
a Pedobaptist apostle have pursued this course? To 
bring the matter nearer home : Would a Pedobaptist 
missionary write a letter to a Pedobaptist church, 
making special mention of parents and children, urg- 
ing both to a faithful performance of relative duties, 
and say nothing about the obligations of either parents 
or children as connected with infant baptism or grow- 
ing out of it ? No one will answer this question affirm- 
atively. The apostle of the Gentiles, therefore, did 
what we cannot reasonably imagine a Pedobaptist 
missionary or minister to do. This is a very sug- 
gestive fact. 

I have now noticed the usual arguments supposed 
to be furnished by the New Testament in favor of in- 
fant baptism. Not one has been intentionally omitted. 
Is there precept or example to justify it? Celebrated 
Pedobaptist authors shall answer this question. Dr. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 37 

Wall of the Church of England, in his History of In- 
fant Baptism, on the very first page of his *' Preface/' 
says that, "among all the persons that are recorded as 
baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention 
of any infant.'^ Neander of Germany — the first church 
historian of his generation — referring to *^ the latter 
part of the apostolic age," expresses himself thus: 
"As baptism was closely united with a conscious en- 
trance on Christian communion, faith and baptism 
were always connected with one another; and thus 
it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was 
performed only in instances where both could meet 
together, and that the practice of infant baptism was 
unknown at this period. AYe cannot infer the exist- 
ence of infant baptism from the instance of the bap- 
tism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Cor. xvi. 
15 shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from 
that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, 
who were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults."* 
Professor Moses Stuart, for many years the glory of 
the Andover Theological Seminary, in his Essay on 
Baptism (p. 101), says, in his reference to infant bap- 
tism, " Commands or plain and certain examples, in 
the New Testament, relative to it, I do not find. Nor, 
wuth my views of it, do I need them." Dr. Woods, 
long a colleague of Professor Stuart, in his Lectures on 

* Planting and Training of the Churchy pp. 101, 102. 
4 



38 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Infant Baptism, remarks as follows: "It is a plain 
case that there is no express precept respecting infant 
baptism in our sacred writings. The proof, then, that 
infant baptism is a divine institution must be made 
out in another way/^ These are important conces- 
sions, made by men whose celebrity is coextensive 
with Christendom. 

Now, if the New Testament does not sustain the 
cause of infant baptism, ought it not to be given up ? 
If, as the Westminster Confession affirms, " baptism 
is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by 
Jesus Christ,^' it is self-evident that we should go to 
the New Testament to learn who are proper subjects 
of baptism. If it was ordained by Jesus Christ, we 
should allow him to decide who are to be baptized, 
and not refer the matter to either Abraham or Moses. 
But Pedobaptists, unable to prove infant baptism from 
the New Testament, go to the Old, and try to sustain 
it by reasoning, analogy, inference. Was there ever 
before such a course adopted to establish a divine or- 
dinance? Ask a Jew why his ancestors for so many 
centuries observed the feasts of the Passover, Pente- 
cost, and Tabernacles, and he will tell you that God 
commanded them to do so. Ask a Christian why be- 
lievers should be baptized and partake of the Lord's 
Supper, and his response will be that these are in- 
junctions of Jesus Christ. Ask a Pedobaptist, how- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 39 

ever, why infants should be baptized, and he will at 
once plunge into the mazes of Judaism and argue the 
identity of the old " Jewish Church ^^ and the gospel 
church, insisting, meanwhile, on the substitution of 
baptism for circumcision. This is a strange method 
of proving that infants ought to be baptized. It 
argues a consciousness of the utter absence of New- 
Testament authority for infant baptism. It indicates 
that there is no command to baptize infants ; for a 
command would supersede the necessity of argument 
to show the propriety of the practice. No man enters 
into an argument to prove that believers should be 
baptized. The positive injunction of Christ renders 
it superfluous. Strange as it is for Pedobaptists to go 
to the Old Testament for justification of one of their 
practices under the New-Testament economy, yet, as 
they do so, it is necessary to follow them. This will 
now be done. 

SECTION VII. 
The argument from the supposed identity of the Jewish com- 
monwealth and the gospel church of no force. 

This identity is assumed, and on it the propriety of 
infant church-membership is thought to rest. I shall 
permit distinguished Pedobaptist writers — represen- 
tative men — to speak for themselves. Dr. Hibbard, a 
very able Methodist author, in his work on Christian 
Baptism^ says : ^^ Our next proper position relates to 



40 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

the substantial oneness or identity of the Jewish and 
Christian churches. I say substantial oneness, be- 
cause, although in many secondary and adventitious 
points they differ, still, in all the essential features of 
the real church of God, they are one and the same. 
And here it is proper to admonish the reader of the 
importance of this position. It is upon this ground 
that we rest the weight of the Bible argument for in- 
fant baptism '' (pp. 31, 32). 

This language is plain and easily understood, though 
any one familiar with the baptismal controversy will 
detect in the phrase ^' substantial oneness ^^ an unwill- 
ingness to endorse the ^^ identity ^^ theory without 
qualification. 

Dr. Samuel Miller, for many years Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History in Princeton Theological Sem- 
inary, in his Sermons on Baptism, expresses himself 
thus : ^^As the infant seed of the people of God are 
acknowledged on all hands to have been members of 
the church equally with their parents under the Old- 
Testament Dispensation, so it is equally certain that the 
church of God is the same in substance now that it was 
thenJ^ The italics are the Doctor's. Here, also, is a 
disposition to recoil from a bold avowal of the doc- 
trine of identity. " The same in substance '^ is the 
convenient phrase selected to meet the logical exi- 
gences that may possibly occur. Again, Dr. Miller 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 41 

says : " It is not more certain that h man arrived at 
mature age is the same individual that he was when 
an infant on his mother's lap, than it is tliat the church, 
in the plentitude of her light and privileges after the 
coming of Christ, is the same church which many- 
centuries before, though with a much smaller amount 
of light and privilege, yet, as we are expressly told in 
the New Testament (Acts vii. 38), enjoyed the presence 
and guidance of her Divine Head in the wilderness/^ * 

Dr. N. L. Rice, in his debate with the renowned 
Alexander Campbell at Lexington, Kentucky, re- 
marks, ^'The churchy then, is the same under the Jewish 
and Christian Dispensations^-the same into which God 
did, by positive law, put believers and their children^ f 
Dr. Rice, it will be seen, is bolder than Drs. Hibbard 
and Miller. He says nothing about "substantial one- 
ness,'' " the same in substance f but with characteristic 
fearlessness announces his position, and, in order to 
attract special attention, italicizes the words in which 
he expresses it. 

The venerable Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Theology, 
is as positive in his statements as is Dr. Rice. This 
will be seen in the following extracts : "The common- 
wealth of Israel was the church. It is so called in 
Scripture (Acts vii. 38);" "The 'church under the 
New Dispensation is identical with that under the 

* Sermons on Baptism, pp. 18, 19. f Debate^ p. 285. 

4 * 



42 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Old. It IS not a new church, but one and the same ;" 
^^ Under the old economy, the church and state were 
identical. No man could be a member of the one 
without being a member of the other. Exclusion 
from the one w^as exclusion from the other. In the 
pure theocracy the high priest was the head of the 
state as w^ell as the head of the church. The 
priests and Levites were civil as well as religious 
officers'' (vol. iii., pp. 548, 549, 552, 553). 

As Dr. Hodge held these views, the thoughtful 
reader will w^onder that he was not an advocate of 
a union between church and state under the gospel 
economy. That he was not resulted from a fortunate 
inconsistency on his part. 

The Pedobaptist view of the identity of the Jewish 
theocracy and the Christian Church is now before us 
as given by men of high position and distinction. Can 
this view be sustained ? I shall attempt to show that 
it is utterly untenable. First^ however, the term church 
must be defined. It means '' a congregation,'' " an 
assembly." The Greeks used the term ekklesia (the 
word translated "church") to signify an assembly, 
without regard to the purpose for which the assem- 
bly met. Hence the tumultuous concourse of the 
citizens of Ephesus referred to in Acts xix. 32, 41, 
is called in the original ekklesia, and is translated ^•as- 
sembly." We have the same word in verse 39 ; but, as 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 43 

a defining epithet is prefixed to it, we read in the com- 
mon version " lawful assembly/^ The term ekklesia, 
therefore, while it denotes an assembly, does not, in 
its general signification, denote the kind of assembly. 
This being the case, the Jewish nation, or congre- 
gation, might with propriety be called ekklesia, or 
"church,^^ as in Acts vii. 38. In the New Testament, 
however, the term ekklesia, in its application to the 
followers of Christ, generally refers to a particular lo- 
cal congregation of saints. I do not say that it has 
not a more extensive meaning, but this is its general 
meaning; and with this alone the present argument is 
concerned. The sacred writers speak of the churches 
of Judea, the churches of Macedonia, the churches of 
Asia, the churches of Galatia; and these churches were 
evidently composed of persons who had made credible 
profession of their faith in Christ. In apostolic times 
the members of a particular congregation were called 
" saints,^^ " believers,^^ " disciples," ^' brethren." They 
were separated from the world — a spiritual people. 
Baptists say that in this sense of the term "church" 
there was no church before the Christian Dispensation. 
There were doubtless many pious persons from the 
days of Abel to the coming of Christ, but there was 
not a body of saints separate from the world. The 
Jewish nation ^vas separate from other nations, but it 
was not a nation of saints. It was a kind of politico- 



44 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

religious body, and circumcision was a mark of nation- 
ality. The righteous and the wicked belonged to this 
commonwealth and were entitled to its privileges. But 
there was no spiritual organization composed of regen- 
erate persons, called out, separated, from the Jews as a 
people, till John the Baptist came preaching in the 
wilderness of Judea. I have been thus particular in 
defining the term " church ^^ that there may be no 
misapprehension of its meaning. Where the phrase 
"Jewish Church ^^ is used it is to be understood as 
denoting — as in Acts vii. 38 — the whole nation, and 
not a true spiritual body. But where the phrase 
" Christian Church ^^ occurs it denotes a body of re- 
generate, spiritual believers in Christ. 

I now proceed to show that the Jewish theocracy 
and the kingdom of God, or of heaven, as referred to 
in the New Testament, are not identical. 

1. Because^ when the Jewish theocracy had been in 
existence for centuries , the prophets predicted the estab- 
lishment of a new kingdom. 

In Isaiah ii. 2 it is written, "And it shall come to 
pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's 
house shall be established in the top of the mountains, 
and shall be exalted above the hills ; and all nations 
shall flow unto it.'^ There is manifest reference here 
to the kingdom of God. It is not intimated that this 
kingdom had been established, but that it was to be es- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 45 

tablished. The phrase '^ last days ^^ means, no doubt, 
what it means in Heb. i. 1, 2 : ^* God . . . hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by his Son/^ It designates 
the period of the Christian Dispensation. 

The prophecy of Daniel (ii. 44) deserves special 
consideration. Having referred, in the interpretation 
of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, to the empires of Bab- 
ylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, the prophet 
added, "And in the days of these kings shall the God 
of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be 
destroyed ; and the kingdom shall not be left to other 
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all 
these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.'^ This 
kingdom was to be set up several centuries after Dan- 
iel prophesied. The phrase "setup'' must indicate 
the establishment of a new kingdom ; there is no in- 
timation that the old Jewish kingdom was to be reor- 
ganized. This new kingdom was to stand for ever. 
It was not to fall, like the worldly empires symbolized 
by the gold, silver, brass, and iron of Nebuchadnez- 
zar's image, but it was to be a permanent kingdom, 
maintaining an unbroken existence amid the lapse 
of ages and the revolutions of time. Who does not 
see that this kingdom has an inseparable connection 
with the church of Christ, of which he said, "The 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? (Matt. 
xvi. 18). The kingdom, the church, is to stand. 



46 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

AVhy? Because the machinations of Satan cannot 
overthrow it. 

John the Baptist referred in his preaching to the 
new kingdom. His voice was heard in the wilderness 
of Judea, saying, "Repent ye; for the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand^^ (Matt. iii. 2). Was it the old 
Jewish kingdom that was at hand? Certainly not. 
Jesus too, in the very beginning of his ministry, an- 
nounced the same kingdom as " at hand.'^ He said, 
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at 
hand : repent ye, and believe the gospel ^^ (Mark i. 15). 
The time to w^hich the prophets, Daniel especially, re- 
ferred was fulfilled. The new kingdom was at hand. 
The command, therefore, w^as " Repent ye.^^ Such 
preaching had never before been heard. The injunction 
" Repent '^ was new, and the argument enforcing it was 
new. There was something so novel and so distinctive 
in the preaching of Christ and his harbinger as to indi- 
cate the introduction of a new era. That the preach- 
ing of John was the beginning of a new era is man- 
ifest from the Saviour's words : " The law and the 
prophets w^ere until John : since that time the kingdom 
of God is preached, and every man presseth into it '^ 
(Luke xvi. 16). 

In view of the considerations now presented, how 
can the Jewn'sh theocracy and the gospel kingdom be 
the same? Is "the substantial oneness, or identity, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 4< 

of the Jewish and Christian churches '^ — to use Dr. 
Hibbard^s words — a possible thing ? Yet he says, " It 
is upon this ground that we rest the weight of the 
Bible argument for infant baptism/^ It rests, then, 
on a foundation of sand. Dr. Hibbard is in a dilem- 
ma. He may choose either horn of this dilemma, and 
it will gore him unmercifully. For if such a founda- 
tion can sustain the argument for infant baptism, there 
is no weight in the argument; but if the weight of the 
argument crushes the foundation, there is no solidity in 
the foundation. 

2. Another fact fatal to the identity contended for is 
that those who were regular memhefi^s of the old Jewish 
Church could not become members of the Christian Church 
without repentance^ faith, regeneration^ and baptism. 

The plainness of this proposition renders it needless 
to dwell upon it at any great length. A few consider- 
ations will sufficiently develop its truth. The inhab- 
itants of Judea were, of course, members of the ^^ Jewish 
Church." I prefer the phrase " Jewish commonwealth " 
or " Jewish theocracy," because in our ordinary lan- 
guage the word ^^ church " carries with it the Christian 
idea of a truly spiritual body ; but through courtesy I 
say " Jewish Church," as explained above. 

The Jews in Jerusalem and in the land of Judea 
were members of this church. John the Baptist call- 
ed on these church-members to repent and do works 



48 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

meet for repentance and to believe on the coming 
Messiah as preparatory to baptism. He restricted the 
administration of baptism to those who repented and be- 
lieved. The Pharisees and Sadducees — two prominent 
sects among the Jews — were church- members. John 
spoke to them as a ^^ generation of vipers." The Phari- 
sees had no adequate conception of the necessity of a 
proper state of heart, and the Sadducees were semi-in- 
fidels. They were no doubt recognized as worthy mem- 
bers of the Jewish Church, but they were utterly unfit 
for membership in a church of Christ. John let them 
know that their relationship to Abraham was no qual- 
ification for a place in the kingdom of heaven. Nico- 
demus was a Pharisee and an ojicial member of this 
Jewish Church ; yet he was ignorant of the doctrine 
of regeneration. Being " born again " was a mystery 
to him. He was an unregenerate man. The Saviour 
said to him, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye 
must be born again " (John iii. 7). Nor did Jesus 
regard any of the Jews as qualified for baptism till 
they became his disciples. It is therefore said that 
he "made and baptized more disciples than John" 
(John iv. 1). The scribes, lawyers, and doctors of the 
Jewish Church the Great Teacher denounced as hypo- 
crites; "for," he said, "ye shut up the kingdom of 
heaven against men : for ye neither go in yourselves, 
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in " 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 49 

(Matt, xxiii. 13). This passage proves two things — 
that the kingdom of heaven was then in existence, 
and that it was not identical with the Jewish kingdom. 
If it had not been in existence, it could not have been 
sluit up. If it was identical with the Jewish kingdom, 
tlie scribes were already in it. But they were not in 
it ; for the Saviour said, " Ye neither go in your- 
selves.'^ If, then, they were in the Jewish kingdom, 
and were not in the kingdom of heaven, the two king- 
doms cannot be the same. 

3. It deserves special notice that the covenant of the 
Jewish Church and the covenant of the Christian Church 
are different. 

The truth of this proposition Pedobaptists deny. 
They assume that '^ the covenant of grace,^' or " gos- 
pel covenant,^' was made with Abraham, and that the 
"covenant of circumcision^^ was so identified with it 
that circumcision became the seal of "the covenant 
of grace." 

Dr. Thomas O. Summers, now (1882) Professor of 
Theology in Vanderbilt University, in his volume on 
Baptism (p. 23), referring to infants, says : " They are 
specifically embraced in the gospel covenant. When 
that covenant was made with Abraham, his children 
were brought under its provisions, and the same seal 
that was administered to him was administered also to 
them, including both those that were born in his house 



50 DISTi:SCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

and those that were bought with his money. They 
were all alike circumcised in token of their common 
interest in that covenant of which circumcision was 
the appointed symbol. That covenant is still in 
force.'^ 

Dr. Hodge, as already quoted, not only says that 
^' the church under the New Dispensation is identical 
with that under the Old/^ but adds, " It is founded on 
the same covenant — the covenant made with Abra- 
ham.^^ Again he says : '^ Such being the nature of 
the covenant made with Abraham, it is plain that, so 
far as its main element is concerned, it is still in force. 
It is the covenant of grace, under which we now^ live, 
and upon which the church is now founded ^^ (vol. iii., 
pp. 549, 550). 

Here it is assumed by these two able writers, who 
worthily represent Methodists and Presbyterians, that 
the gospel covenant was made with Abraham, and that 
circumcision was its seal. Pedobaptists have a decided 
preference for the singular number. They do not say 
covenants : it is covenant in conversation, in books, and 
in sermons. Paul speaks of covenants, the two cove- 
nants , covenants of promise, etc. How " the covenant 
of circumcision ^' can be identified with " the covenant 
of grace," or '^ gospel covenant,'^ defies ordinary com- 
prehension. Placing myself in antagonism with Drs. 
Summers and Hodge, I am obliged to say that what 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 51 

the former calls the "gospel covenant/^ and the latter 
" the covenant of grace," was not made with Abraham. 
They both quote Paul, but Paul does not say so. The 
language of the apostle is this : "And this I say, That 
the covenant that was confirmed before of God in 
Christ [that is, in reference to the Messiah] the law, 
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot 
disannul, that it should make the promise of none ef- 
fect" (Gral. iii. 17). This covenant was confirmed to 
Abraham, not made with him. It was made before. 
It must have had an existence, or it could not have 
been confirmed. The confirmation of anything im- 
plies its previous existence. 

I shall not attempt to penetrate the counsels of 
eternity to ascertain the particulars of the origin of 
the covenant of grace. It is sufficient for my present 
purpose to say that it is, doubtless, the result of the 
sublime consultation of the three Persons in the God- 
head concerning the prospective condemnation and 
ruin of the race of Adam. The first intimation of 
the existence of this covenant was given in the mem- 
orable words, "And I will put enmity between thee 
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed : 
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
heel" (Gen. iii. 15). This incipient development of 
God's purpose of mercy to man no doubt cheered 
Abel, Enoch, and all the pious who lived in the 



52 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

world^s infancy. The nature of the covenant, recog- 
nized when mercy^s faint whisperings w^ere first heard, 
was more fully unfolded when that covenant Avas con- 
firmed to Abraham in the words, "And in thee shall 
all families of the earth be blessed f^ "And in thy 
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ^^ 
(Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18). These two promises are sub- 
stantially the same, the one affirming that in Abraham, 
the other that in his seed, all the families, or nations, 
of the earth should be blessed. There was to be no 
blessing from him personally to all nations, but the 
blessing w^as to come through his seed. Irrespective 
of the provisions of the covenant confirmed to Abra- 
ham, there never has been, and never will be, salva- 
tion for Jew or Gentile. There is no salvation except 
in Christ, and Paul informs us that he is referred to 
as the " seed ^' of Abraham : " He saith not. And to 
seeds, as of many ; but as of one. And to thy seed, 
which is Christ ^^ (Gal. iii. 16). The covenant with 
respect to Christ, if we count from the first promise 
to Abraham, was confirmed to him when seventy-five 
years old (Gen. xii.), and the covenant of circumcision 
was made with him when he had reached his ninety- 
ninth year (Gen. xvii.). Twenty-four years intervened 
between the two transactions, yet Pedobaptists insist 
that there was but one covenant. One covenant was 
confirmed to Abraham, and one made with him ; yet, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 53 

it seems, there was but one ! There is some mistake 
about this, for two 07ies added together make two. 

Now, if, according to the theory of Drs. Sum- 
mers and Hodge, the " gospel covenant,'^ or " cove- 
nant of grace,'^ was made with Abraham, and if cir- 
cumcision was the seal of that covenant, then it had no 
seal for twenty-four years after it was made. More- 
over, if the ^^ gospel covenant," or "covenant of 
grace," was made with Abraham, by the provisions 
of what covenant were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and others 
who lived before the days of Abraham, saved? This 
question is submitted to all the Pedobaptist theo- 
logians in Christendom. If they will only consider it, 
they will cease to say that the " gospel covenant," or 
"covenant of grace," was made with Abraham. If, 
as Pedobaptists assert, circumcision was the seal of 
the " covenant of grace," what became of Abraham's 
female descendants ? Were the blessings of the cove- 
nant not secured to them, or ^vere they left to the 
" uncovenanted mercies " of God ? The truth is the 
inspired writers never refer to circumcision or baptism 
as a " seal " of a covenant. Circumcision is called " a 
token of the covenant " which God made with Abra- 
ham (Gen. xvii. 11), and "a seal of the righteousness 
of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised " 
(Rom. iv. 11). It was never a seal of the righteous- 
ness of the faith of any other man. How could it 

5* 



54 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 

be, when all Abraham's male descendants were re- 
quired to be circumcised at eight days old, when they 
were incapable of faith ? Under the Gospel Dispen- 
sation baptism is not a seal, and Pedobaptists labor 
under a mistake when they so represent it. Believers 
are ^^ sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise '^ (Eph. 
i. 13). They are commanded to "grieve not the Holy 
Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of 
redemption '^ (Eph. iv. 30). But, for argument's sake, 
let baptism be considered a seal— a seal of the cove- 
nant which, it is said, was formerly sealed by circum- 
cision. Then the perplexing question arises, Why 
apply the seal to both sexes, when the seal of cir- 
cumcision was applied to but one? Circumcision, it 
is argued, was a type of baptism. The type had 
reference to males alone. Therefore the antitype has 
reference to both sexes ! Such reasoning is at war 
with the plainest principles of sound logic. There 
is another absurdity in making baptism the antitype 
of circumcision. Baptism is referred to by Peter as a 
" figure." If, then, circumcision was a type of it, it 
was a type of a type, a figure of a figure; which is 
incredible. 

But to be more specific with regard to the covenants : 
The covenant of circumcision made with Abraham re- 
ceived its full development in the covenant of Mount 
Sinai. There was, if the expression is allowable, a 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 55 

new edition of the covenant. The Sinaitic regula- 
tions were made in pursuance of the provisions of the 
covenant made with Abraham, and on this account 
circumcision, the ^^ token of the covenant/^ was incor- 
porated into those regulations, and became a rite of the 
Mosaic economy. Jesus therefore said to the Jews, 
" If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision 
that the law of Moses should not be broken/^ etc. 
(John vii. 23). This language shows that the cove- 
nant of circumcision was so identified with the Sinaitic 
covenant that the failure to circumcise a man was a 
violation of the law of Moses. The old Jewish Church, 
then, grew out of the covenant of circumcision, which 
was the germ of the Sinaitic covenant that God made 
with the Israelites when he ^^ took them by the hand 
to lead them out of the land of Egypt ^^ (Heb. viii. 9). 
This covenant, entered into at Mount Sinai, was to 
continue in force, and did continue in force, till 
superseded by another and a ^^ better covenant.'^ 
It preserved the nationality of the Jews, while cir- 
cumcision marked that nationality and indicated a 
natural relationship to Abraham. This celebrated 
patriarch was to have a numerous natural seed, to 
which reference is made in the covenant of circum- 
cision, and, by virtue of the provisions of the cov- 
enant '^ confirmed^' to him concerning the Messiah, 
he was to have a spiritual seed also. He was to be 



66 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

the father of believers. Hence we have sucli passages 
of Scripture as these : " That he might be the father of 
all them that believe, though they be not circumcised " 
(Rom. iv. 2) ; ^' They which are of faith, the same are 
the children of Abraham f^ "And if ye be Christ's, 
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
the promise " (Gal. iii. 7, 29). The process of spir- 
itual filiation to Abraham is effected by faith. Jews, 
therefore — his natural seed — cannot become his spir- 
itual seed without faith. But if faith creates the 
spiritual relationship to Abraham, Gentiles as well 
as Jews may become his spiritual seed, for they are 
equally capable of faith. For the encouragement of 
Gentiles who were uncircumcised, Paul referred to the 
fact that Abraham was justified by faith before he was 
circumcised. Having referred to the development of 
the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision in the cov- 
enant of Sinai, I may now refer to the development 
of the covenant respecting the Messiah, out of which 
covenant has 'grown the gospel church. This is termed 
the new covenant^ in contradistinction from the Sinaitic 
covenant. The development of its provisions was to 
occur many centuries subsequent to the giving of the 
law, although those provisions had an embryo exist- 
ence in the covenant ^' confirmed " to Abraham con- 
cerning Christ. In Heb. viii. 8-12 there is a quo- 
tation from Jer. xxxi. 31-34 which sheds much lis^ht 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 57 

on the two covenants. It is as follows : " Behold the 
days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made 
with their fathers, in the day w^hen I took them by the 
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because 
they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded 
them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant 
that I will make with the house of Israel after those 
days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their 
mind, and write them in their hearts : and I will be 
to them a God, and they shall be to me a people : and 
they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every 
man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all shall 
know me from the least to the greatest. For I will 
be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and 
their iniquities will I remember no more.'^ 

This is the new covenant — new in its manifestation, 
though old in its origin — the ^* better covenant, which 
was established upon better promises" (Heb. viii. 6). 
Of this covenant Jesus is Mediator, and this fact shows 
that the gospel covenant is the outgrowth of the cov- 
enant '^ confirmed of God " to Abraham concerning 
Christ. How essentially different the old covenant 
and the new ! Pedobaptists, however, as we have seen, 
insist that the Jewish Church and the Christian Church 
are the same ! God found fault with the old covenant, 



58 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

and superseded it by the new ; yet it seems that the 
new which displaces the old is substantially identical 
with it ! It is strange that men do not observe that 
God, in describing the new covenant, says expressly, 
'' Not according to the covenant that i made 
WITH THEIR fathers/^ the old covenant. 

Several distinctive points of difference between the 
old covenant and the new may be seen in Gal. iv. 
22-31. There are four allegorical personages referred 
to by Paul — namely, Hagar, Ishmael, Sarah, and Isaac. 
Hagar was a ^^ bondmaid,^' and gave birth to a son 
"after the flesh '^ — that is, there was in his birth no 
departure from the laws of ordinary generation. This 
" bondwoman ^^ represents the covenant of Sinai, and 
"answereth to Jerusalem, which now is ^^ — the old 
Jewish Church, which " gendereth to bondage.'^ Je- 
rusalem — the Jewish Church — is therefore said to be 
"in bondage with her children.^^ To "gender to 
bondage ^^ was all that Sinai could do; there w^as no 
provision in the Sinaitic covenant for anything more : 
its possibilities were exhausted. Sarah, " the free 
woman,^^ represents the new covenant, and the Chris- 
tian Church of which that covenant is the charter. 
She gave birth to Isaac, who was born " by promise ^^ 
— " after the Spirit ^^ — that is, according to a promise 
the fulfilment of which involved supernatural agency. 
" Jerusalem which is above '^ — the Christian Church 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 59 

represented by Sarah — ^^ is free, which is the mother 
of us all/^ of all Christians. Believers in Christ are 
" the children of promise/' as Isaac was. They are 
born "after the Spirit" and "of the Spirit.'' Thus 
it is as clear as the light of day that, while the Jew- 
ish Church was supplied with its members by genera- 
tion, the Christian Church is furnished with its members 
by regeneration. This is one prominent difference be- 
tween the two, and it is as great as that between death 
and immortality. "But as then," says the apostle, 
"he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that 
\vas born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Ishmael 
persecuted Isaac, and so the children of the covenant 
of Sinai — Abraham's seed according to the flesh — per- 
secuted, in apostolic times, the beneficiaries of the new 
covenant, Abraham's spiritual seed. Sinai, in " gen- 
dering to bondage," also " gendered " a persecuting 
spirit; and it is worthy of remark that an infusion 
of Judaism into the sentiments of any religious de- 
nomination has a tendency to make it a persecuting 
denomination. This fact is both significant and sug- 
gestive. " Nevertheless, Avhat saith the scripture ? 
Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son 
of the bondwoman shall not be heir w^ith the son of 
the free w^oman. So then, brethren, w^e are not chil- 
dren of the bondwoman, but of the free." 

Here is authority for keeping all but regenerate 



60 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

persons out of the Christian Church : ^^ Cast out the 
bondwoman and her son/^ The Jews, considered as 
Abraham^s natural seed, had no right to the privileges 
of the cluirch of Christ. Tliey had first to become 
Christ's disciples by faith, and then they were in the 
Important sense Abraham's seed. Paul never forgot one 
of the first principles of the gospel economy announced 
by John the Baptist to the Pharisees and the Saddu- 
cees : " Think not to say within yourselves, We have 
Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you, that God 
is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abra- 
ham '' (Matt. iii. 9). They were, under the New Dis- 
pensation, to claim nothing on the ground of their 
lineal descent from Abraham. Piety was to be an 
intensely personal concern. Daniel Webster once 
said, "The bed of death brings every human being 
to his pure individuality.'' This is true; but Chris- 
tianity does the same thing before it is done by "the 
bed of death." The gospel places every one on the 
basis of his "pure individuality" before God. 

4. The supposed identity of the Jewish Church and the 
Christian Church involves absurdities and impossibilities. 

According to this view, the scribes, the Pharisees, 
the Sadducees, and all the Jews were members of the 
church; yet it is notorious that they procured the 
crucifixion of the Head of the church. These church- 
members, many of them occupying "official positions,'^ 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 61 

manifested bitter enmity to Christ, and said, ^'We 
Avill not have this man to reign over us.'' They 
charged him with being in league with Satan in cast- 
ing out demons. When he was condemned to death 
they said, " His blood be on us and on our children ^' 
(Matt, xxvii. 25). Strange language for church-mem- 
bers to employ ! Who can believe that they were 
members of a church " the same in substance '' with 
the Christian Church ? If the Pedobaptist position 
is tenable, the three thousand converts on the day of 
Pentecost were added to the church, though they were 
in it before ! The Lord added daily to the church not 
only the saved (Acts ii. 47), but those already mem- 
bers! When a great company of priests became 
obedient to the faith, they joined themselves to the 
apostles and were put out of the synagogues, though 
the Jews putting them out were of the same church ! 
Saul of Tarsus "persecuted the church and wasted it'' 
— " made havoc" of it — and when converted became a 
member of the church, though he had always been one ! 
Ay, more, he obtained his authority to persecute from 
official members of the church. These and many other 
absurdities and impossibilities are involved in the sup- 
position that the Jewish Church and the Christian 
Church are the same. They are not the same. The 
phrases " same in substance,^' "substantial identity,'^ 
cannot avail Pedobaptists ; for there is no sort of 



62 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

identity. A ^^ substantial sameness '^ cannot be discovered 
with a theological microscope. Paul's teaching is that 
Jesus Christ makes ^' of twain one new man '^ (Eph. ii. 
15) — that is, regenerated Jews and Gentiles are the ma- 
terials of which the new man, or church, is composed. 
There is reference to an organization, and the descrip- 
tive epithet '^neic^^ is applied to it. Pedobaptists 
virtually say that the Lord Jesus did not make a 
^' new man.^^ They advocate the claims of the ^^ old 
man,^^ admitting, however, that he is changed in some 
unimportant respect ; so that his ^^substantial identity ^^ 
remains unimpaired. 

What effect would have been produced in apostolic 
times on the minds of unbelieving Jews if it had been 
intimated that their church was identical with the 
Christian Church? They would have been highly 
offended. Paul exemplified the most indignant elo- 
quence whenever false teachers attempted to corrupt 
the purity of the Christian Church with the leaven of 
Judaism. The old Jewish Church and the church of 
the New Testament were regarded by believers and by 
unbelievers as essentially distinct. No one thought of 
their ^^substantial identity;'^ for infant baptism was 
unknown, and there w^as nothing to suggest the " iden- 
tity '^ doctrine. It is as easy for a camel to go through 
the eye of a needle as for the identity of the Jewish 
and the Christian churches to be maintained. If there 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 63 

is no identity, infant membership in the Jewish com- 
monwealth is no authority for infant membership in 
the Christian Church ; and it is perfectly gratuitous to 
insist that baptism has come in the place of circum- 
cision. Still, the advocates of infant baptism argue 
that circumcision is superseded by baptism, and that, 
as infants were circumcised under the Jewish economy, 
they should be baptized under the Christian Dispen- 
sation. 

SECTION VIII. 
The argument from circu7ncisio7i fails. 

The position advocated by Pedobaptists will be seen 
from the following extracts. 

Dr. Miller — already referred to — says : " Our next 
step is to show that baptism has come in the room of 
circiimcision, and therefore that the former is rightfully 
and properly applied to the same subjects as the lat- 
ter.^^ Again : '' There is the best foundation for as- 
serting that baptism has come in the place of circum- 
cision . . . Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in 
the place of circumcision, there are points in regard 
to which the former differs materially from the latter.'^ * 
Here the doctrine is stated unequivocally that '' bap- 
tism has come in the place of circumcision/^ How it 
takes its place, and yet "differs materially from it'^ 
* Sermons on Baptism, pp. 22, 23. 



64 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

on some ^^ points/^ must ever be a mystery to persons 
of ordinary mental penetration. 

Dr. Rice says: "It is certain that baptism came in 
place of circumcision ; that it answers the same ends 
in the church now that were answered by circumcision 
under the former dispensation.^^ * 

Dr. Summers affirms : " That baptism is the ordi- 
nance of initiation into the church, and the sign and 
seal of the covenant now, as circumcision was for- 
merly, is evident/^ t 

I find in Dr. Hodge's Theology no statements so pos- 
itive as those now quoted, but he so expresses himself 
that it is impossible not to infer his belief in the sub- 
stitution of baptism for circumcision. 

But is this view, though held by great and learned 
men, defensible ? I shall attempt to show that it is 
not, for the following reasons : 

\. It was necessary for the circumcised to be baptized 
before they could become members of the church of Christ 

How was this, if baptism came in the place of cir- 
cumcision and is a seal of the same covenant? Was 
the covenant first sealed by circumcision, and subse- 
quently sealed by baptism? Were there two seals? 
If so, away goes the substitution theory. If the same 
persons were both circumcised and baptized, there was, 

^ Debate with Campbell^ p. 302. 
f Summers on Baptism, pp. 25, 26. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 65 

SO far as they were concerned, no substitution of bap- 
tism for circumcision. In their case circumcision was 
not abolished, and nothing could take its place. It 
occupied its own place, and it was necessary for that 
place to be vacated before anything else could occupy 
it. Dr. Miller refers to baptism as coming "m the 
room^' of circumcision ; but there was no '' room^^ till 
the non-observance of circumcision made room. Why, 
then, were those who had been circumcised baptized? 
Why was Jesus himself both circumcised and bap- 
tized ? These are unanswerable questions if baptism 
came in the place of circumcision. 

Dr. Miller's views involve another difficulty. He 
says: *^The children of professing Christians are al- 
ready in the church. They were born members; their 
baptism did not make them members. It was a public 
ratification and recognition of their membership. They 
were baptized because they were members '' (p. 74). The 
position here assumed is demolished by one fact. That 
fact is that the New-Testament subjects of baptism are 
never represented as baptized because they are in the 
church, but that they may enter into it. Dr. Miller's 
reason for administering baptism to infants labors 
under the misfortune of being remarkably unscrip- 
tural ; for if '^ the children of professing Christians 
are already in the church," this is a very good rea- 
son for not baptizing them at all. 
6* 



66 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

Any one familiar with the baptismal controversy 
can see that Dr. Miller's Abrahamic and Judaidic 
notions vitiated his logic in its application to evan- 
gelical subjects. He reasoned in this way : The nat- 
ural seed of Abraham were members of the Jewish 
National Church by virtue of their birth ; and so far 
his reasoning was correct. They were circumcised 
because by natural generation they were made bene- 
ficiaries of the covenant of which circumcision was 
the '' token.'' Dr. Miller's next step was this : The 
children of professing Christians are born members of 
the Christian Church, and are entitled to baptism, even 
as Abraham's natural seed were entitled to circumcision. 
But is this true ? It cannot be. Whatever rational 
analogy may be traced between circumcision and bap- 
tism is on the side of the opponents of infant baptism. 
How plain this is ! Abraham's natural seed were cir- 
cumcised because they had a birthright-interest in the 
covenant God made with Abraham. Christians are 
Abraham's spiritual seed. They become so by faith 
in Christ, and are beneficiaries of the new covenant, 
the provisions of which are eminently spiritual. There 
is in baptism a recognition of their interest in the bless- 
ings of this covenant. It was right to circumcise Abra- 
ham's natural seed, and it is right to baptize his spiritual 
seed; but who are his spiritual seed? Believers in 
Christ, and believers alone. Infants, therefore, have 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 67 

no right to baptism, because they are not Abraham's 
spiritual seed. Jewish infants were fit subjects for 
circumcision, because they were Abraham's natural 
seed ; but neither Jew^ish nor Gentile infants can be 
his spiritual seed, because of their incapacity to believe, 
and therefore they ought not to be baptized. I insist, 
then, that correct analogical reasoning from circumcision 
to baptism saps the very foundation of Pedobaptisra 
and furnishes Baptists with an argument of the strength 
of w^hich thev have never fully availed themselves. 
This may be considered a digression. If so, let us 
return to the subject of discussion. 

I was attempting to show that baptism did not come 
in the place of circumcision, and referred to the well- 
known fact that multitudes of circumcised persons were 
also baptized. This could never have taken place if 
baptism came in the room of circumcision. In this 
connection, the circumcision of Timothy is worthy of 
notice. His mother was a Jewess, but his father a 
Greek. Owing to the latter fact, doubtless, he re- 
mained uncircumcised. After his conversion and 
baptism Timothy was circumcised by Paul. This 
was done to conciliate the Jews, which shows that 
they considered circumcision a mark of nationality. 
Now the question arises. Why did Paul circumcise 
Timothy, who had been baptized, if baptism came in 
the place of circumcision? Thus in the New Tes- 



68 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

tameiit we have baptism administered after circum- 
cision, and circumcision performed after baptism : yet 
Pedobaptists say that the one came in the place of the 
other ! 

2. A second fact to be noticed is that circumcision was 
confined to one sex. 

Premises and conclusions are often wide as the poles 
asunder. Of this we have a striking proof in the reason- 
ing of Pedobaptists from the circumcision of infants 
under the Old Dispensation to the baptism of infants 
under the New. The fact they begin with is of course 
this : Male children were circumcised under the Old- 
Testament economy. The conclusion is: Therefore 
male and female children ought to be baptized under 
the gospel economy. Is this logic? If but one sex 
is recognized in the premise, how is it that there is a 
recognition of both sexes in the conclusion? There 
must be something wrong in the reasoning that brings 
out more in conclusions than is contained in premises. 
This is the misfortune of the argument now under con- 
sideration. Pedobaptists most gratuitously infer that, 
as children of one sex were formerly circumcised, there- 
fore children of both sexes should now be baptized. 
Surely, if baptism came in place of circumcision, its 
administration should be confined to the male sex; but 
it is by divine authority administered to believers of 
the other sex, and therefore it did not come in place 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 69 

of circumcision. Pedobaptists must admit that, so far 
as female infants are concerned, baptism did not take 
the place of circumcision ; for circumcision occupied 
no place, and therefore could not be displaced by any- 
thing else. This is so plain as to need no elaboration. 

3. The eighth day was appointed f 07^ the circumcision 
of infants. 

Is this true of infant baptism? The thing itself 
is not commanded, to say nothing of the time. But 
Pedobaptists must be met on their own ground. They 
say that baptism has come ^^in the room of circum- 
cision." If they believe this, consistency requires 
that they baptize male infants alone, and that they be 
baptized on the eighth day. Do they pursue this 
course? They do not; and their failure to do so may 
well excite doubt whether they are perfectly satisfied 
with their position. 

4. The Council of apostles, elders , and brethren at 
Jerusalem virtually denied the substitution of baptism 
for cirxumcision. 

In Acts XV. w^e have an account of this Council. 
The reason for its convocation was this : " Certain men ^' 
went from Judea to Antioch and " taught the brethren,^^ 
saying, ^' Except ye be circumcised after the manner of 
Moses, ye cannot be saved.'^ Paul and Barnabas join- 
ed issue with these '^ men," and after much disputation 
it was determined to send a deputation to Jerusalem 



70 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

to consult ^^ the apostles and elders about this ques- 
tion/^ Paul and Barnabas belonged to this depu- 
tation^ and upon their arrival at Jerusalem, before the 
Council mety some of the believing Pharisees urged the 
necessity of circumcision. The same question, there- 
fore, was agitated both at Antioch and at Jerusalem. 
That question was w^hether the believing Gentiles ought 
to be circumcised. The Council met, and after due 
deliberation and consultation ^^it pleased the apostlcvS 
and elders, with the whole church,^^ to decide against 
the circumcision of Gentiles. Now, if baptism came 
in place of circumcision, the apostles knew^ it, and this 
w^as the time to declare it. A simple statement of the 
fact would have superseded all discussion. Why did 
they not say, '^ Circumcision is unnecessary, because 
baptism has taken its place ^^? This is what Pedo- 
baptists would have, said if they had been in that 
Council. The inspired apostles, however, did not say 
it. Indeed, the decision of the Council had reference 
to the believing Gentiles alone, and the understanding 
evidently was that believing Jews were at liberty to 
circumcise their children. This we may learn from 
Acts xxi. 17-25, and it is a fact utterly irreconcil- 
able with the substitution of baptism for circumcision. 
When circumcision was regarded as a mark to desig- 
nate nationality, Paul made no objection to it; but 
when its necessity to salvation was urged, he consid- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 71 

ered the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ 
disparaged and shorn of its glory. To all circumcised 
with this latter view he said : " If ye be circumcised, 
Christ shall profit you nothing ^^ (Gal. v. 2). But 
to return to the Council at Jerusalem : If baptism 
came in place of circumcision, the very reason which 
called that Council together must have led to a decla- 
ration of the fact, and it is strangely unaccountable that 
it did not. We are forced to the conclusion that bap- 
tism was not, in apostolic times, believed to be a substi- 
tute for circumcision. Hence the Council at Jerusalem 
could not, and did not, say it was. Its decision involved 
a virtual denial of the very thing for which Pedobap- 
tists so strenuously contend. 

" I have now given a specimen — and but a specimen 
— of the considerations which show that baptism has 
not taken the place of circumcision. A volume might 
be written on this one point; but it is needless. He 
who is not convinced by the facts already presented 
would not be convinced "though one should rise from 
the dead.'^ 

The Scripture argument on infant baptism is now 
closed. I have examined the New-Testament claim 
of infants to baptism, and also the Old-Testament 
claim, and can perceive no mark of validity in either. 
My readers will therefore allow me to endorse what the 
North British Review, the organ of the Free (Presby- 



72 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

terian) Church of Scotland, says in its number for 
August, 1852 : 

" Scripture knows nothing of the baptism 
of infants.'^ 

section IX. 
The historical argimient examined. 

From the word of God, Pedobaptists go to church 
history and seek ^^aid and comfort'^ from its records. 
What does church history say of infant baptism ? 
Much, I admit ; but there is no proof that it was 
practised before the latter part of the second century. 
The proof is by no means conclusive that it was prac- 
tised before the third century. This the reader will 
see as historical facts are presented. 

I quote from Dr. Wall of the Church of England, 
whose History of Infant Baptism is in high repute 
wherever the English language is spoken. Referring, 
in chap, iii., to the well-known passage in Irenseus, he 
says, ^^ Since this is tlie first express mention that we 
have met with of infants baptized, it is worth the 
while to look back and consider how near this man 
was to the apostles^ time.'^ Irenseus, according to Dr. 
Wall's chronology, lived about the year 167. It is 
well to give the disputed passage. Here it is : "For 
he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself: all, I 
mean, who by him are regenerated [or baptized] unto 
God ; infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 73 

and elder persons. Therefore he went through every 
age; for infants being an infant, sanctifying infants/^ 
etc. It is needless to quote further, for iho^ contro- 
versy is about ihQ meaning of the word "regenerated/^ 
It will be observed that Dr. Wall interpolates ^' bap- 
tized " as its meaning. Benascor is the word used in 
the Latin translation ; for the original Greek is lost. 
That renascor means " born again '^ or " regenerated ^^ 
is beyond dispute; nor is it necessary to deny that the 
" Fathers/^ so called, sometimes use it as synonymous 
with " baptized.'' Baptists, however, deny that it has 
this meaning in the passage under consideration, and 
distinguished Pedobaptists agree with them, as the fol- 
lowing quotations prove. 

The learned Winer, speaking of infant baptism, 
says, "Irenseus does not mention it, as has been 
supposed. '^ * 

Dr. Doddridge says, " We have only a Latin trans- 
lation of this work ; and some critics have supposed 
this passage spurious, or, allowing it to be genuine, it 
will not be granted that to be regenerate always in his 
writings signifies ^ baptized.' '^ f 

Pedobaptists must deeply feel their need of some- 
thing to sustain their practice when they attempt to 
extort from Irenseus testimony in favor of infant bap- 

* Christian BevieWj vol. iii., p. 213. 
t Mmellantous WorkSy p. 493. 



74 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

tism. He says nothing about baptism in connection 
with infants. 

Tertullian, who lived about the year 200, is often 
referred to by Pedobaptists as the first opponent of 
infant baptism, but they argue that his opposition 
proves the existence of the practice. It is by no 
means certain that Tertullian refers to the baptism 
of infants. The term which he uses, and which Dr. 
Wall translates " little children/' is parvulos. Irenseus 
speaks of infantes, parvulos. He makes a distinction 
between infantes and parvulos. If Tertullian uses the 
latter term as Irenseus did, he does not refer to the 
baptism of unconscious infants, but to the baptism of 
"little children.^' These "little children ^^ may have 
been capable of exercising faith in Christ. Whether 
they were or not I do not undertake to decide. It is 
true, however, that Tertullian, owing to his peculiar 
views, advised a delay of baptism on the part of cer- 
tain classes of persons who had reached mature years. 

Having come down to the beginning of the third cen- 
tury, may I not say that if infant baptism rests for its 
support on the practice of the first two centuries, it 
rests on a foundation of sand? To the end of two 
hundred years it has no distinct historical recog- 
nition. 

From Tertullian, Dr. Wall comes to Origen, w^hora 
he represents as living about the year 210. Origen 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 75 

wrote in Greek, and his works in the original were 
chiefly lost and Latin translations remain. Dr. Wall 
says "only the Latin translations." However this 
may be, he tells us that " upon the renewal of learn- 
ing" nothing was admitted to be Origen's except 
translations made "into Latin either by 8t Hierom'^ 
or Rujinusy He accords fidelity to Hierom in his 
translations, but says that " Rufinus altered or left 
out anything that he thought not orthodox." Nor 
is this all; for these significant words are added: 
" Whereas now in these Translations of Rufinus the 
reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily says) icliether 
he read Origen or Rufinus." f 

Dr. Wall admits that Origen's Homilies on Leviticus 
and his Comments on the Ejjistle to the Romans were 
translated by Rufinus ; and in these productions we 
are supposed to have his strongest testimony in favor 
of infant baptism. In his eighth Homily he is repre- 
sented as saying, " Infants also are, by the usage of the 
church, baptized." In his comments on Romans this 
language is attributed to him : "The church had from 
the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even 
to infants." This is Dr. Wall's translation. He was 

* Same as " Jerome." 

f History of Infant Baptism^ chap. v. In quoting from Dr. Wall 
I refer to chapters rather than to pages, because his History is 
published in different forms. I have the edition of 1705. 



76 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

very anxious to translate the Latin term traditio 
"order/' It seems, however, that he had some mis- 
giving, and therefore put the word " order ^^ in brack- 
ets. Let it not be forgotten that the translation of 
these portions of Origen^s works was made from Greek 
into Latin by Rufinus, who " altered or left out any- 
thing that he thought not orthodox." Who knows, 
therefore — who can ever know — whether Origen wTote 
what is here ascribed to him ? What alterations were 
made in his writings ? Such as Rufinus, in his ortho- 
doxy, thought proper. What things were " left out '^ ? 
Only those that Rufinus thought ought to be left out ! 
Erasmus, a prodigy of learning in his day, was un- 
certain whether he read " Origen or Rufinus.^' But 
if Origen did say what Rufinus represents him as say- 
ing, what does it amount to? Absolutely nothing with 
those who recognize the word of God as the only rule 
of faith and practice. The " usage of the church '' and 
" a tradition from the apostles " are referred to as au- 
thority for infant baptism ; there is no appeal to the 
Holy Scriptures. Who but a Romanist is willing to 
practise infant baptism as a tradition, and not a divine 
ordinance ? Origen's testimony is valuable to a Papist, 
entirely worthless to a Protestant. 

Leaving the " uncertain " writings of Origen, Dr. 
Wall conducts us into the Council of Carthage, in the 
year 253. This Council was composed of sixty-six 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 77 

bishops, or pastors, and Cyprian presided over it. One 
of the questions submitted to its decision was whether 
a child should be baptized before it was eight days old. 
Fidus, who presented the question, was in the nega- 
tive; and rightly too, if the law of circumcision was 
to regulate the matter. The very fact that such a 
question was sent to the Council shows that infant 
baptism was a new thing. Had it been practised from 
the days of the apostles, the point whether a child 
should be baptized before the eighth day would have 
been settled before A. D. 253. The Council decided 
against the delay of baptism, assigning this weighty 
reason : *^4.s far as in us lies, no soul, if possible, is 
to be lost." Here it will be seen that the necessity 
of baptism, in order to salvation, is recognized. In 
this supposed necessity infant baptism, doubtless, had 
its origin. This will be clear when the testimony of 
the great Neander is presented. The Council of Car- 
thage attempted to justify infant baptism by referring 
to the fact that when the son of the Shunammite wid- 
ow (2 Kings iv.) died, the prophet Elisha so stretched 
himself on the child as to apply his face to the child's 
face, his feet to the child's feet, etc. By this, said the 
Council, "spiritual equality is intimated'' — that is, a 
child is spiritually equal to a grown person ! A con- 
clusive reason for infant baptism, truly ! The cause 

must be desperate, indeed, when the decision of a 

7* 



78 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Council that could gravely advance such a conceit as 
an argument is invoked to sustain it.* 

It is not necessary to refer to other of the so-called 
^^ Christian Fathers/^ especially to Augustine, as testi- 
fying in favor of infant baptism ; for Baptists do not 
deny that infants were baptized from the days of Cyp- 
rian. Augustine, who died a. d. 430, refers to infant 
baptism as an apostolic tradition : apostolica traditio is 
the phrase he employs. He meant, no doubt, that it 
was handed down from the apostles by tradition that 
infants were to be baptized. This implies the silence 
of the New Testament on the subject. No one would 
Bay that it was handed down by tradition that believ- 
ers are to be baptized. Why ? Because the baptism 
of believers is so clearly taught that tradition is pre- 
cluded. Not so as to infant baptism ; for here there 
is room for tradition, because in regard to this rite the 
Scriptures are as silent as the grave. As to Augustine 
himself, the tradition to which he refers was not suf- 
ficiently operative to secure his baptism in infancy, 
though his mother, Monica, was a pious woman. He 
was not baptized till thirty years of age. 

It has been intimated that the testimony of the 
great church historian Neander is decisive as to the 

* The reader who wishes to verify the statements here made 
concerning the Ck)uncil of Carthage may refer to WalFs Histoi^y 
chap. vi. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 79 

origin of infant baptism in its supposed necessity in 
order to salvation. He says, "That not till so late a 
period as (at least, certainly not earlier than) Irenseus 
a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first be- 
came recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course 
of the third century, is evidence rather against than /or 
the admission of its apostolic origin ; specially since, 
in the spirit of the age when Christianity appeared, 
there were many elements which must have been 
favorable to the introduction of infant baptism — the 
same elements from which proceeded the notion of the 
magical effects of outward baptism, the notion of its 
absolute necessity for salvation, the notion which gave 
rise to the mythus [niyth] that the apostles baptized 
the Old-Testament saints in Hades. How very much 
must infant baptism have corresponded with such a 
tendency if it had been favored by tradition !" "^ 

Dr. Wall in the second part of his History y chap, 
vi., referring to the " ancient Fathers,^^ says, " They 
differ concerning the future state of infants dying un- 
baptized ; but all agreed that they missed of heaven.'^ 

In view of this testimony of two Pedobaptists of 
great celebrity, who does not see that infant baptism 
originated from its supposed inseparable connection 
with salvation? A deplorable misconception of the 
truth of the gospel gave it birth, while misappre- 

* Planting and Training of the Churchy p. 102. 



80 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

hension of the teachings of the New Testament pro- 
longs its injurious existence. The " historical argu- 
ments^ for infant baptism affords very little "aid and 
comfort ss to Pedobaptists. But suppose it was a thou- 
sand times stronger; suppose every writer from the 
death of the last apostle had expressed himself in 
favor of it; even then it would be nothing less than 
an act of will- worship while the Scriptures are silent 
concerning it. The perplexing question, " Who hath 
required this at your hands ?" should confound its ad- 
vocates. " The Bible, the Bible alone/' said Chilling- 
worth, " is the religion of Protestants.'^ Arguments 
from antiquity, to be available, must penetrate the 
antiquity of the apostolic age and rest on the teach- 
ings of the New Testament. All other arguments are 

w^orthless. 

SECTION X. 

Objections to infant baptism. 

In view of the considerations presented in the pre- 
ceding pages, there must be very serious objections to 
infant baptism. Some of these objections will now be 
considered. 

1. A decided objection to it is that its advocates can- 
not agree why it should be practised. 

How conflicting, how antagonistic, their opinions ! 
Roman Catholics baptize infants, in order to their 
salvation. They consider baptism essential to the 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 81 

salvation of both adults and infants. They have 
sometimes shown the sincerity of their belief by at- 
tempting to baptize children before they were born. 
Episcopalians, in accepting the teachings of the "Book 
of Common Prayer/^ baptize infants to make them 
children of God by regeneration. John Calvin, as 
may be seen in his Life by Henry (vol. i., pp. 82, 83), 
maintains that infants are capable of exercising faith, 
and that their baptism is an exemplification of believers' 
baptism. This seems also to have been Martin Luther's 
opinion. John AVesley in his Treatise on Baptism says, 
" If infants are guilty of original sin, they are proper 
subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, that 
they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away in 
baptism.'^ The " Directory ^^ of the Westminster As- 
sembly places the right of the infants of believers to 
baptism on the ground that they are " federally holy." 
The opinion held by probably the larger number of 
Protestant Pedobaptists is that infants are baptized 
"to bring them into the church." But Dr. Samuel 
Miller, as we have seen, insists that the children of 
Christian parents are born members of the church, 
and are baptized because they are members : while Dr. 
Summers derives the right of infants to baptism from 
"their personal connection with the Second Adam." 
These are specimens of the reasons urged in favor 
of infant baptism. How contradictory ! How antag- 



82 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 

onistic ! It seems that infants are to be baptized that 
they may be saved ; that they may be regenerated; be- 
cause they have faith ; because their parents are be- 
lievers ; because they are involved in original sin ; 
because they are holy; because they ought to be 
brought into the church ; because they are in the 
church by virtue of their birth ; and because of their 
^^ personal connection ^^ with Christ, in consequence of 
his assumption of human nature. It would be well 
for the various sects of Pedobaptists to call a Council 
to decide why infants should be baptized. The reasons 
in favor of the practice are at present so contradictory 
and so self-destructive that it must involve the advo- 
cates of the system in great perplexity. Many, though, 
would object to such a Council because, for obvious rea- 
sons, the Pope of Rome should preside over it, and 
others would object because it would probably be in 
session as long as the Council of Trent. Still, if one 
good reason could be furnished for infant baptism by 
the united wisdom of Romanists and Protestants, it 
would be more satisfactory than all the reasons which 
are now urged, 

2. A second objection to infant baptism is that its tend- 
ency is to unite the church and the world. 

Jesus Christ evidently designed the church to be the 
light of the world. His followers are not of the world, 
but are chosen out of the world. If anything in the 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 83 

New Testament is plain, it is plain that the Lord Jesus 
intended that there should be a line of demarcation 
between the church and the world. It is needless to 
argue a point so clear. Now, the tendency of infant 
baptism is to unite the church and the world, and thus 
to obliterate the line of demarcation which the Saviour 
has established. Let the principles of Pedobaptism 
universally prevail, and one of three things will in- 
evitably follow — either there will be no church, or 
there will be no world, or there will be a worldly 
church. The universal prevalence of Pedobaptist 
sentiments would bring all " born of the flesh ^^ into 
the church. To be borUy not to be born again, would 
be the qualification for membership. The unregen- 
erate members would be in a large majority. The 
world would absorb the church, or, to say the least, 
there would be an intensely worldly church. Is this 
not true of the national churches of Europe? The 
time has been, whatever may be the case now, when 
in England "partaking of the Lord's Supper '^ pre- 
ceded the holding of the civil and military offices of 
the kingdom. Thus a premium was offered for hy- 
pocrisy, and many an infidel availed himself of it. In 
the United States of America there are so many coun- 
teracting influences that infant baptism cannot fully 
develop its tendency to unite the church and the 
world. Indeed, in some respects, Pedobaptists prac- 



84 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

tically repudiate their own principles. They do not 
treat their ^^ baptized children'^ as church-members. 
If they did, there would be a deplorable state of 
things. The unregenerate members of local congre- 
gations would generally be in the majority, and would 
exert a controlling influence. 

3. Another objection to infant baptism is that it 
cherishes in " baptized children ^^ the delusive belief 
that they are better than others ; that their salvation 
is more hopeful. 

In many instances, it is to be feared, they are led to 
consider themselves in a saved state. The children of 
Romanists must so regard themselves if they attribute 
to baptism the efficacy ascribed to it by Papists. If 
the children of Episcopalians believe the ^^Book of 
Common Prayer,^^ they must grow up under the false 
persuasion that in their baptism they "were made 
members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors 
of the kingdom of heaven.^^ If the children of 
Methodists believe the "Discipline,'^ and that the 
prayer offered at their baptism was heard, they must 
recognize themselves as baptized not only "with 
water," but "with the Holy Ghost." If the chil- 
dren of Presbyterians believe the " Westminster Con- 
fession " and the " Directory," they look upon them- 
selves as "federally holy" — "in covenant with God'^ 
— and consider that " the covenant was sealed by their 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 85 

baptism/' Will not all these classes of children im- 
agine themselves better than others ? Will they not, 
under the teaching they receive, view other children 
as consigned to the " uncovenanted mercies ^' of God, 
while they occupy a high vantage-ground? Will not 
their delusive belief present a serious obstacle in the 
way of their salvation? Is there any rational proba- 
bility of their salvation, unless they disbelieve the dog- 
mas inculcated in their baptism? Will the children 
of Roman Catholics ever be saved while they regard 
their baptism as having placed them in a saved state ? 
Will the children of Episcopalians become the '^chil- 
dren of God ''so long as they entertain the absurd 
notion that they were made his children by baptism? 
Will the children of Methodists be regenerated while 
they imagine that they have been baptized ^^ with the 
Holy Ghost"? Will the children of Presbyterians 
repent and acknowledge their guilt and condemnation 
before God while they lay the " flattering unction to 
their souls" that they are ^^ federally holy" and ^Mn 
covenant with God " ? 

I would not give offence, but must say that Pedo- 
baptist children must take the first step in the pursuit 
of salvation by practically denying the truth of what 
they have been taught concerning their baptism. It 
will be asked, Are not thousands of the children of 
Pedobaptists converted to God ? I gladly concede it ; 



86 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

but why is it so? One prominent reason, doubtless, 
is that, on tlie part of their ministers and parents, 
there is a practical repudiation of their baptismal 
theories. The ^' baptized children,'^ whatever the 
baptismal formulas may say, are taught that they 
are sinners, unregenerate, lost, condemned, and ex- 
posed to the wrath of God, for the very reason that 
they are not " in covenant ^^ with him. Thanks be to 
God that the preaching and teaching of Pedobaptists 
do not accord with their " Creeds,'^ so far as the sub- 
ject of infant baptism is concerned ! The discrepancy 
is vital to the welfare of their offspring. There are 
some happy inconsistencies. 

4. A fourth objection to infant baptism is that it in- 
terferes with the independent action of the minds of 
" baptized children " on the subject of baptisniy and in 
numberless instances preveyit^ baptism on a profession 
of faith in Christ. 

Suppose^ when " baptized children '^ reach mature 
years, they are, as is often the case, annoyed with 
doubts concerning the validity of their baptism. 
They feel at once that they cannot entertain these 
doubts without virtually calling in question the pro- 
priety of what their parents caused to be done for 
them in their infancy-. Filial respect and reverence 
present almost insuperable barriers in the way of an 
impartial investigation of the subject. The question 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 87 

comes up, Shall we reflect on the wisdom of our 
parents by declaring their act null and void ? If the 
l)arents are dead and gone to be with Christ, the dif- 
ficulty is often greater. The question then assumes 
this form : Shall we repudiate what our now-glorified 
parents did for us in our infancy ? It often requires 
a great struggle to surmount the difficulty, and in 
many cases it is never surmounted. It is unquestion- 
ably true that the influence of infant baptism inter- 
feres with the unbiased action of many minds with 
regard to scriptural baptism. How great would be 
the number of those who, but for their infant bap- 
tism so called, would be baptized on a profession of 
faith in Christ ! They hesitate to say that the " in- 
fantile rite'^ was worthless. They know that great 
and good men have practised infant baptism. Their 
minds are perplexed. They wish it had so happened 
that they had not been baptized in infancy. Still, the 
sprinkling of the baptismal (!) waters on them in in- 
fancy now prevents an intelligent immersion into 
Christ on a profession of faith in his name. Is it 
not an objection to infant baptism that it prevents 
so many from obeying Christ, and even fosters a 
spirit of disobedience ? 

5. As a last objection to infant baptism, I refer to its 
tendency to supplant believers^ baptism and banish it 
from the world. 



88 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

This objection, though presented last, is first in im- 
portance. It is, indeed, the capital objection, and if 
exhibited in all its phases would virtually embrace all 
objections. It is not, however, necessary to dwell on 
it at length, because its force and conclusiveness are 
readily seen. By all who practise baptism at all it is 
admitted that the New Testament enjoins the baptism 
of believers in Christ. The universality of this ad- 
mission precludes the necessity of proof. The bap- 
tism of believers, then, is a divine ordinance. Is it 
reasonable to suppose that two divine ordinances an- 
tagonize with each other ? Is it credible that this is 
the case ? Pedobaptists say that infant baptism is a 
divine ordinance, and they are slow to admit that it 
antagonizes with the baptism of believers. But the 
antagonism is direct, positive. The inevitable tenden- 
cy of infant baptism is to supplant the bapti&m of be- 
lievers. This is owing to the fact that it is practically 
regarded by Pedobaptists as superseding the necessity 
of believers^ baptism. It must be so regarded, or it is 
made null and void. When baptized infants grow up 
to maturity and become believers in Christ, there is 
nothing said among Pedobaptists about baptism on a 
profession of faith. No ; the baptism of the uncon- 
scious infant is allowed to prevent the baptism of the 
intelligent believer. Hence it is easy to see the tend- 
ency of infant baptism to supplant and banish the 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 89 

baptism of believers from the world. A supposition 
will make this so plain that no one can misunderstand 
it: Let it be supposed, then, that the principles of Pe- 
dobaptists prevail throughout the world. All parents 
come into the church and have their children baptized 
in infancy. If this supposition were realized, where 
w^ould believers' baptism be ? It would in one gen- 
eration be utterly supplanted and banished from the 
world. An ordinance established by Christ to be ob- 
served to the end of time would be abolished. There 
would be no scriptural baptism on earth. One of the 
institutions of the Head of the church would not be 
permitted to have a place in the world which he made, 
and in which he labored, toiled suffered, and died ! 
How startling and fearful is this ! A human tradi- 
tion arraying itself against an ordinance of Heaven, 
and attempting to destroy it and leave no memorial 
of its existence on the face of the globe ! 

Influenced by the considerations presented in the 
ten sections of this chapter. Baptists regard infant 
baptism as utterly destitute of scriptural support; 
and, in view of its many evils, they are most decided 
in their opposition to it. On the other hand, they are 
the earnest advocates of the baptism of believers in 
Christ; and of believers alone. In this opposition 
and in this advocacy may be seen one of the prom- 
inent Distinctive Pkixciples of Baptists. 

8* 



CHAPTER II, 

BAPTISTS CONSIDER THE IMMERSION IN WATER OF 

A BELIEVER IN CHRIST ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM 

— SO ESSENTIAL THAT WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO 

BAPTISM. 

SECTION I. 

Greek lexicons give "immerse," " cZip," or "plunge'' as the 
primary, ordinary, and literal meaning of " baptizo.^' 

TN the common version of the Scriptures baptizo 
-^ and baptisma are Anglicized^ but not translated. 
This is invariably true of the latter term, and it is 
true of the former whenever the ordinance of baptism 
is referred to. Baptismos is used four times. In 
three instances it has no reference to the baptismal 
ordinance, and is translated ^Svashing;'^ which wash- 
ing was evidently the result of immersion. In the 
other instance it is Anglicized. BaptOy from which 
baptizo is derived, is employed in the Greek New Tes- 
tament three times, and embapto three times. Both 
are translated "dip^Mn the common version. There 
is no more difference in their meaning than there is 
between the word *^dip" and the phrase "dip inJ- 

90 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 91 

These verbs are never used in connection with baptism 
as a religious ordinance; haptizo is the verb always 
used. 

I have referred to baptizo and baptisma as Anglicized 
words. By this it is meant that their termination is 
made to correspond with the termination of English 
words. In baptizo the final letter is changed into 6, and 
in baptisma the last letter is dropped altogether. To 
make this matter of Anglicism perfectly plain, it is 
only necessary to say that if the Greek rantizo, mean- 
ing "sprinkle/' had been Anglicized, we should have 
" rantize '^ in the New Testament wherever we now 
have "sprinkle.'^ 

The version of the Bible now in common use was 
made by order of King James I. of England, and was 
first published in the year 1611. The king gave a 
number of rules for the guidance of his translators, 
and the third rule virtually forbids the translation of 
" baptize '^ and "baptism.^' This third rule is as fol- 
lows : " The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the 
word ^church' not -to be translated 'congregation.' '^ 
It is absurd to say that this rule had exclusive refer- 
ence to the term " church,'' for this term is manifestly 
given as a specimen of " old ecclesiastical words ;" and 
why should ^' words " be mentioned if the rule was to 
be applied to but one word ? The question, then, is, 
Are " baptism " and " baptize " ^^ old ecclesiastical 



92 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

words'^? They were words when the Bible was 
translated, or they would not be found in it. They 
had been used by church historians and by writers on 
ecclesiastical law, and were, therefore, ecclesiastical. 
They had been in use a long time, and were, conse- 
quently, old. They were '^ old ecclesiastical words/^ 
such words as the king commanded ^^to be kept^^ — 
^' not to be translated/^ It is worthy of notice, too, 
that the Bishop of London, at the king's instance, 
wrote to the translators, reminding them that His 
Majesty wished his 'HMrd and fourth rule'' to be 
specially observed.* This circumstance must have 
called particular attention to the rule under consid- 
eration. In view of these facts, it may surely be said 
that the translators knew what were ^' old ecclesiastical 
words." Let their testimony, then, be adduced. In 
their " Preface to the Reader " they say that they had, 
" on the one side, avoided the scrupulosity of the Puri- 
tans, who left the old ecclesiastical words and betook 
them to other, as when they put ^ washing ^ for ^ bap- 
tism ' and ^ congregation ' for ^ church ;' and, on the 
other hand, had shunned the obscurity of the Pap- 
ists." Is not this enough? Here there is not only 
an admission that " baptism " was included in the "old 
ecclesiastical words," but this admission is made by the 
translators themselves — made most cheerful Iv, for it 
*See Lewis's History of Translations, pp. 317, 319. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 93 

was made in condemnation of the Puritans and in 
commendation of themselves. 

The position that King James virtually forbade the 
translation of " baptize '^ and " baptism '' is established 
by the foregoing considerations ; but to give it addi- 
tional strength I refer to the king's fourth rule, as fol- 
lows : ^* When any word hath divers significations, that 
to be kept which hath been most commonly used by 
the most eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the pro- 
priety of the place and the analogy of faith.'' Sup- 
pose I were to admit, for argument's sake, what some 
Pedobaptists insist on — namely, that baptizo has divers 
significations. What then ? Every man of intelligence 
knows that from the days of the apostles to the reign 
of King James "immerse" was its commonly-received 
meaning. Was not immersion ordinarily practised for 
thirteen hundred years f Dr. Whitby, Dr. Wall, Pro- 
fessor Moses Stuart, and I know not how many other 
Pedobaptists of distinction, make this concession. Far 
be it from me to say that baptizo is a word of "divers 
significations ;" but even if it were, the king's transla- 
tors, if they had translated it at all, would have been 
compelled to render it " immerse," for it was " most 
commonly used" in this sense by "the most eminent 
Fathers." But it will be seen that the king's third 
rule makes inoperative his fourth^ so far as " old 
ecclesiastical words" are concerned. Whether such 



94 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

words have one meaning or a thousand meanings, 
they are ^^ to be kept '^ — " not to be translated/^ The 
translators were not at liberty to refer to the signifi- 
cation immeraorially attached by the Greeks to baptlzo 
— a signification which received the cordial endorse- 
ment of "the most eminent Fathers/^ They might 
have examined the endorsement if the royal decree 
had not said, ^^Hitherto, but no farther ^^ — " the old 
ecclesiastical words to be kept/^ 

The fact that *^ baptize '^ is an Anglicized, and not 
a translated, word makes an appeal to Greek lexicons 
necessary to ascertain its meaning. Lexicons, it is 
true, do not constitute the ultimate authority, but 
their testimony is highly important. I have made it 
a point to examine all the lexicons I have seen (and 
they have been many) concerning the import of bap- 
tizo. There is among them a remarkable unanimity 
in representing "immerse,'' or its equivalent, as the 
primary and ordinary meaning of the word. Ac- 
cording to lexicographers, it is a word of definite 
import — as much so as any other. It is as specific as 
rantizOy and it might be argued just as plausibly that 
rantizo means " to immerse^' as that baptizo means "to 
sprinkle." I have seen no lexicon that gives "sprinkle '^ 
as a meaning of baptizo, and but one that makes " to 
pour upon " one of its significations. In the first 
edition of Liddell & Scott's Greek-and-Enorlish 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 95 

lexicon ^^ to pour upon " is given as the seventh 
meaning of baptizo. It is a significant fact^ how- 
ever, that, while passages in classic Greek autliors 
are referred to as ilhistrative of the ordinary mean- 
ing of the word, there is no mention of any passage 
that sustains the definition ^^to pour upon/^ 

It is worthy of special remark that the second edi- 
tion of Liddell & Scott does not contain the phrase 
" to pour upon/^ This is an important fact, of which 
Baptists may avail themselves. It has been well said 
by a scholar now dead : * " When it is remembered 
that the definition ^ pour upon ' was assigned to bap- 
tizo in the first English edition, on the authority of 
Francis Passow, whose German work forms the basis 
of that of Liddell & Scott, this change in the second 
English edition is an admission as gratifying to Bap- 
tists as it is unwelcome to tlieir opponents. Messrs. 
Liddell & Scott, w^ho cannot be charged with a lean- 
ing to Baptist sentiments, have deliberately, after due 
examination, withdrawn their authority in favor of 
^ pour upon ^ as a signification of the verb baptizo, and 
now define the word just as Baptist scholars have de- 
fined it after a careful study of the passages in which 
it occurs in the Greek authors. Of such a concession 
Baptists know well how to take advantage.'^ 

I now repeat that there is among lexicons a perfect 
* Eev. W. C. Duncan, D. D. 



96 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

concurrence in assigning "immerse'' or its equivalent 
as the primary and ordinary meaning of haptizo. 
Tills ought to settle the baptismal controversy. For 
what says Blackstone, who is almost the idol of the 
legal profession? — "Words are generally to be un- 
derstood in their usual and most known significa- 
tion ; not so much regarding the propriety of gram- 
mar as their general and popular use/' * " Immerse " 
was the "usual and most known signification'' of 
baptizo among the Greeks. It was its " general and 
popular use/' as we shall see in the proper place. 

To return to the argument derived from lexicons: 
All English dictionaries give " immerse " or its equiva- 
lent as the ordinary meaning of " dip." It would, 
therefore, be very unreasonable to deny that " dip " 
ordinarily means "to immerse." Greek lexicons give 
"immerse" as the ordinary meaning of baptizo. Is it 
not, then, just as unreasonable to deny that baptizo 
ordinarily means " to immerse " as it would be to 
deny that " dip " has this signification ? Indeed, 
there is no argument employed by Pedobaptists to 
divest baptizo of its usual meaning which may not as 
plausibly be employed to divest "dip" of its ordinary 
import; for, though "dip" is a definite and specific 
word, baptizo is more so. We speak of " the dip of 
the magnetic needle " and of " the dip of a stratum in 
* Sliarswood^s Blackstone, vol., i. p. 58. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 97 

geology/^ wliile Pope uses tlie expression "dipping 
into a volume of history/' If Pedobaptists could find 
baptizo in such connections, there would be rejoicino* 
from Dan to Beersheba. The man who would attempt 
to prove that " dip '^ means " to sprinkle '' or " pour '' 
would probably be laughed at ; but he could make a 
more plausible eflTort in adducing his proof than if he 
were to attempt to prove the same thing concerning 
baptizo. Let us see: Such a man might say that 
Johnson, Webster, and Worcester in their large dic- 
tionaries give "moisten'' and "wet" as meanino-s 
of " dip/' and refer as authority to Milton, who 
uses the following words : "A cold shuddering dew 
dips me all over." Talking with himself, such a 
reasoner might say, "It is a fixed fact that ^dip' 
means ^to moisten' and 'wet.' Who will dispute 
what Johnson, Webster, and Worcester say, sustained 
as they are by the ' prince of British poets ' ? Very 
well. ' Dip ' means to ' moisten ' and ' wet.' Every- 
body knows that a thing can be moistened or made 
wet by having water poured or sprinkled on it. 
Therefore, ^dip' means 'to pour' and 'sprinkle.'" 
Now, I affirm that this argument is more plausible 
than any I ever heard from a Pedobaptist to prove 
that baptizo means "pour" and "sprinkle;" yet it is 
replete with sophistry. It assumes as true the fal- 
lacy that if a process can be accomplished in two 

9 



98 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

different ways, the two verbs employed to denote 
those two ways mean the same thing. An object 
may be moistened by being dipped in water, but 
" moisten ^^ and "dip^^ are not synonymous. The 
same object may be moistened by having water 
sprinkled or poured on it, but neither ^^ moisten and 
sprinkle," nor ^^ moisten and pour," are identical in 
import. Though the moistening may result from the 
dipping, sprinkling, or pouring, the three acts are 
clearly distinguishable, and definite terms are used 
to express them. 

It is proper to say of the Greek lexicons to which 
I have referred that they were all made by men who 
had no partialities for Baptists. A regard for truth, 
therefore, and no desire to give currency to the prac- 
tice of immersion, elicited from them the definition 
they have given of baptizo. Baptists may well felici- 
tate themselves that their opponents bear this strong 

testimony. 

SECTION 11. 

Distinguished Pedohapiist scholars and theologians admit 
that *' baptizo ^^ means ^Ho immerse," 

Here I shall probably be told that it is unfair to 
take advantage of Pedobaptist concessions. There 
is, however, nothing unfair in such a course. No one 
can say that there is without calling in question the 
propriety of what Paul did in his great discourse at 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 99 

Athens ; for he availed himself of the declaration of 
a Greek poet, and made the poetic statement a part of 
his arguQient. I shall aim to do nothing that is not 
justified by the example of the great apostle. Pedo- 
baptist concessions are of great value, for it may be 
said, in the language of another on a different matter, 
^^ This testimony of theirs, to me, is worth a thousand 
others, seeing it comes from such as, in my opinion, 
are evidently interested to speak quite otherwise.^^ 

The reader's earnest attention is called to the follow- 
ing extracts. 

I begin with John Calvin, a learned Presbyterian, 
who lived more than three hundred years ago. He 
\vas very decided in his opposition to Baptists, or 
*L4.nabaptists,'^ as he contemptuously styled them. 
He wrote in Latin, and I avail myself of the trans- 
lation of John Allen, published by the Presbyterian 
Board of Publication, Philadelphia. In his Insti- 
iutes (vol. ii., book iv., chap, xv., paragraph 19, p. 
491) he says, "But whether the person who is bap- 
tized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, 
or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon 
him, is of no importance ; churches ought to be left 
at liberty, in this respect, to act according to the dif- 
ference of countries. The very w^ord baptize^ how- 
ever, signifies ^to immerse;' and it is certain that 
immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.'^ 



100 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

It will be seen that Calvin expresses two opinions 
and states two facts. The opinions are that it is of 
no importance how water is used, and that churches 
should be free to decide as they please; the facts are 
that " baptize ^^ means *^to immerse/^ and that immer- 
sion was the practice of the ancient church. With 
Calvin's opinions I have nothing to do, but his facts 
claim attention. What " baptize '^ means is a question 
of fact, and must be decided by testimony. So of the 
practice of the ancient church. Calvin gave his ver- 
dict on the testimony establishing the facts. The 
reader will observe the distinction between opinions 
and facts. 

Dr. George Campbell, a learned Presbyterian of 
Scotland, who lived about a hundred years ago, in his 
notes on Matt. iii. 11, says, "The word baptizein^^ 
(infinitive mode, present tense, of baptlzo), " both in 
sacred authors and in classical, signifies ^to dip,^ ^to 
plunge,' ^ to immerse,' and was rendered by Tertullian, 
the oldest of the Latin Fathers, tingere — the term used 
for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always 
construed suitably to this meaning.'^ In his Lectures 
on Systematic Theology and Pulpit Eloquence he ex- 
presses himself, in Lecture X., as follows: "Another 
error in disputation which is by far too common is 
when one will admit nothing in the plea or arguments 
of an adversary to be of the smallest weight. ... I 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 101 

have heard a disputant of this stamp, in defiance of 
etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered 
in the New Testament ^ baptize^ means, more properly, 
^ to sprinkle ' than ' to plunge,' and, in defiance of all 
antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and 
for many centuries the most general, practice in bap- 
tizing. One who argues in this manner never fails, 
with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he 
would defend ; and though, with respect to the vul- 
gar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as ar- 
guments — sometimes better — ^yet a candid mind will 
disdain to take the help of a falsehood even in support 
of the truth/' 

Dr. Thomas Chalmers, for many years regarded by 
all as the greatest Presbyterian theologian of Scotland, 
and by some as the greatest theologian of the world 
in his day, uses the following language : " The original 
meaning of the word ^ baptism ' is ^ immersion f and, 
though, we regard it as a point of indifferency whether 
the ordinance so named be performed in this way or 
by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent 
style of the administration in the apostles' days was 
by an actual submerging of the whole body under 
water. We advert to this for the purpose of throwing 
light on the analogy that is instituted on these verses. 
Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism 
— even immersion under the surface of the ground, 

9* 



102 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection 
We, by being baptized into his death, are conceived 
to have made a similar translation.'^* 

Professor Moses Stuart, the most renowned Con- 
gregationalist of his day, and the ornament of the 
Theological Seminary of Andover, Massachusetts, in 
his treatise on the Mode of Baptism (p, 14), says : f 
^'Bapto and baptizo mean ' to dip,^ ' plunge,^ or ' im- 
merge ^ into anything liquid. All lexicographers and 
critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of 
this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted ; 
but for the sake of ample confirmation I must beg the 
reader's patience while I lay before him, as briefly as 
may be, the results of an investigation which seems 
to leave no room for doubt.'' 

I will also give the testimony of an eminent man 
who has recently died. Dean Stanley, in an article 
on ^^ Baptism " in the Nineteenth Century for October, 
1879, says : ^^ For the first thirteen centuries the almost 
universal practice of baptism was that of which we read 
in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning 
of the word ^baptize' — that those who were baptized 
were plunged, submerged, immersed, into the water." 

But why proceed farther with the testimony of 

distinguished Pedobaptist scholars and theologians ? 

* Lectures on Romans, Lecture XXX., on chap. vi. 3-7. 

f This is a reprint from the Biblical Repository, vol. iii., No. 11. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 103 

What I have adduced is surely sufficient. These 
witnesses testify that haptizo means " to immerse ;'^ 
nor do they say that it means "to sprinkle ^^ and 
" pour/^ True it is that Calvin thought immersion 
07' sprinkling a matter of " no importance," and 
Chalmers regarded it as a *^ point of indifferency ;" 
but they are both clear as to what the word baptizo 
means. This is all I want — their testimony as to the 
meaning of the word. Their opinion as to the ad- 
missibility of sprinkling I reject, for it is utterly 
gratuitous unless haptizo means "to sprinkle." This 
they did not say, and could not say. The distinction 
between a fact and an opinion deserves special notice. 
He who, acquainted with the usus loquendi of a term, 
testifies that it means a certain thing, bears witness to 
2ifact; but if he says that it is not important to adhere 
to the meaning established by the lisus loquendi^ he ex- 
presses an opinion. 

It may be asked why those Pedobaptist scholars who 
concede that baptizo means "to immerse" have not be- 
come practical immersionists. This is a question difficult 
to answer. That they ought to have shown their faith 
by their works does not admit a doubt. Some, perhaps, 
have failed to do so on account of early predilections; 
others have not felt willing to disturb their denomi- 
national relations ; and others still have had a horror 
of the charge of fickleness. Probably, however, the 



104 DISTINCTIVE FEINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

greater number, like Professor Stuart, have persuaded 
themselves that, as the Christian Dispensation is emi- 
nently spiritual, it is a matter of little moment, pro- 
vided the heart is right, as to a particular observance 
of ^^ external rites/^ Such persons seem to forget that 
the way to show that the heart is right with God is to 
do the very thing he has commanded. The reasons sug- 
gested for the failure of those Pedobaptists who have 
made such concessions as have been quoted to do their 
duty are, I must say, unsatisfactory. Satisfactory rea- 
sons cannot be given, for impossibilities cannot be per- 
formed. Those who admit that Jesus Christ com- 
manded his disciples to be immersed, and at the same 
time array themselves in practical opposition to im- 
mersion, are accountable to him. Here the matter 
must be left. 

SECTION III. 

The classical usage of " baptizo " establishes the position of 

Baptists, 

I have said that lexicons are not the ultimate authority 
in settling the meaning of words. The truth of this 
statement can be readily seen. Lexicographers are 
necessarily dependent on the sense in which words are 
used to ascertain their meaning. But it is possible for 
them to mistake that sense. If they do, there is an 
appeal from their definitions to usage (called iYieusus 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 105 

loquendi), which is the ultimate authority. I shall now 
show how classic Greek authors used the word baptizo 
— not that I complain of the lexicons, but that I may 
show that the usage of the word fully justifies the lex- 
icons* in giving ^^ immerse ^^ or its equivalent as its 
primary, ordinary, literal meaning. It is pleasant to 
go back to the ultimate authority. 

Few men ever examined the classical import of 
baptizo more extensively than the late Dr. Alexander 
Carson, and the result of his labors is before the pub- 
lic. Since his death Dr. T. J. Conant has gone more 
exhaustively into the subject, apparently leaving noth- 
ing more to be said. These accomplished scholars prove 
beyond question tliat baptizo was used by the Greeks 
in the sense of " immerse f^ but, as I prefer not to quote 
from Baptist authors, I do not avail myself of the 
learned labors of Drs. Carson and Conant. For ob- 
vious reasons, I give the preference to Pedobaptist tes- 
timony. The following extracts, therefore, are made 
from Professor Stuart on the Ilode of Baptism. He 
refers to a number of Greek authors. 

Pindar, who was born five hundred and twenty years 
before Christ, says : ''As when a net is cast into the sea 
the cork swims above, so am I unplunged (abaptistos) ; 
on which tlie Greek scholiast, in commenting, says: 
As the cork (ou dund) does not sink, so I am abaptistos 
— unplunged, not immersed. The cork remains abap^ 



106 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

tistoSy and swims on the surface of the sea, being of a 
nature which is abaptistos; in like manner, I am 
abaptistos.'^ 

Pindar was describing the utter incompetency of his 
enemies to plunge him into ruin. It is only necessary 
to say to the English scholar that the letter a (in 
Greek, " alpha '^), prefixed in the foregoing extract to 
baptistoSf conveys a negative idea. Abaptistos, there- 
fore, means ^^ unplunged/^ ^^ undipped/^ "unimmersed.^^ 
^^ Unsprinkled ^^ or " unpoured " is perfectly out of the 
question. 

Hippocrates, who lived about four hundred and 
thirty years before the Christian era, says : '^ Shall I 
not laugh at the man who sikks (baptisanta) his ship by 
overloading it, and then complains of the sea for engulf- 
ing it with its cargo f^ 

Aristotle, who died three hundred and thirty- two 
years before Christ, ^^ speaks of a saying among the 
Phenicians, that there were certain places, beyond the 
Pillars of Hercules, which when it is ebb-tide are not 
OVERFLOWED {mee baptizesthai)J^ 

Heraclides Ponticus, a disciple of Aristotle, 
says : '' When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the 
fire and plunged in the water (hudati baptizetai), the 
heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the watery 
ceases.^^ 

DiODORUS SicuLUS, who lived about the middle of 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 107 

the century before Christ, uses these words : ^^Ifost of 
the land-animals that are intercepted by the liver [Nile] 
perish, being oyer\vjii:l,mbt>J^ Again: ^^ The river, 
borne along by a more violent cwrent, overwhelmed 
{ebaptise) manyj' 

Strabo, the celebrated geographer, who died A. D. 
25 — a very short time before John the Baptist began 
to preach in the wilderness of Judea — *^ speaking of a 
lake near Agrigentum, says : Things that elsewhere 
cannot float do not sink {mee baptizesthai) in the 
water of this lake, but swim in the manner of wood/^ 
Again : "i/* one shoots an arrow into the channel [of a 
certain rivulet in Cappadocia], the force of the water 
resists it so much that it will scarcely plunge in (6ap- 
tizesthai)J^ Again : ^'They [the soldiers] marched a 
whole day through the water plunged in (baptizome-- 
non) up to the tuaistJ^ Once more : " The bitumen 
floats on the top [of the lake Sirbon], because of the 
nature of the water, which admits of no diving; nor 
can any one who enters it plunge in [baptizesthai), 
but is borne up/^ 

JosEPHUS, who died A. D. 93, aged fifty-six, and 
was therefore contemporary with the apostles, ^' speak- 
ing of the ship in which Jonah was, says : 3Iellontos 
baptizesthai tou skaphous — the ship being about TO sink/^ 
In the history of his own life, ^^ speaking of a voyage 
to Rome, during which the ship that carried him 



108 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

foundered in the Adriatic, he says : Our ship being im- 
mersed or SINKING in the Adriatic, Speaking of Aris- 
tobulus as having been drowned by command of Herod, 
he says : The boy was sent to Jericho, and there, agree- 
ably to command, being immersed in a pond (baptizo- 
menos en kolumbeethra), he perishedJ' 

Plutarch, who died about a. d. 140, refers to a 
Roman general "dipping {baptisas) his hand into 
blood/^ etc. Again : " Plunge {baptison) yourself 
into the sea/^ 

LuciAN, who died A. D. 180, represents Timon, the 
man-hater, as saying: "If a winter^ s flood should carry 
away any one, and, he, stretching out his hands, should 
beg for help, I would press down the head of such an one 
when SINKING (baptizonta), so that he could not rise 
againJ^ 

The reader, by referring to Professor Stuart's trea- 
tise on the Mode of Baptism (pp. 14-20), can test 
the accuracy of these quotations. I might add to 
their number, but these are sufficient. It will be seen 
that I have used Roman instead of Greek letters. This 
has been done for the satisfaction of a large majority of 
those who will read these pages. 

" Immerse '^ is clearly the classical meaning of bap- 
tizo. In all the preceding extracts it might with pro- 
priety be employed. A " sinking ship," for example, 
is a ship about to be immersed. Nor is it any abuse 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 109 

of language to say that places ^^not overflowed'' are 
not immersed. I solicit special attention to the fact 
that, of the Greek authors referred to, some lived 
before the coming of Christ, some during the apostolic 
age, and others at a period subsequent to that age. 
Seven hundred years intervened between the birth of 
Pindar and the death of Lucian. During those seven 
centuries usage shows that baptizo meant " to immerse." 
Most of the classic Greek writers lived before baptism 
was instituted, and knew nothing of immersion as a 
religious ordinance ; those who lived after its institu- 
tion cared nothing for it. There was no controversy 
as to the meaning of baptizo during the classic period 
of Grecian history; there was no motive, therefore, 
that could so influence Greek writers as to induce them 
to use the word in any but its authorized sense. That 
sense was most obviously " to immerse.'' Even Dr. Ed- 
ward Beecher, though carried away with the notion that 
baptizo^ "in its religious sense," means "to purify," 
admits that in classic usage it signifies " to immerse." 
He says : " I freely admit that in numerous cases it 
clearly denotes ^to immerse,' in which case an agent 
submerges partially or totally some person or thing. 
Indeed, this is so notoriously true that I need attempt 
no proof. Innumerable examples are at hand."* 
No man of established reputation as a Greek scholar 

* Beecher On Baptism, p. 9. 
10 



110 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

will deny that baptizo, at the beginning of the Chris- 
tian era, meant " to immerse/^ and that usage had 
confirmed that meaning. Dr. Doddridge virtually 
admits this to be its import in the New Testament 
when used as descriptive of the sufferings of Christ. 
Hence he paraphrases Luke xii. 60 thus : " But I 
have, indeed, in the mean time, a most dreadful bap- 
tism to be baptized with, and know that I shall shortly 
be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the 
most overwhelming distress.^^ * Baptizo literally means 
" immerse,^^ and therefore in its figurative applica- 
tion it is used to denote an immersion in sorrow, 
suffering, and affliction. 

But some say that though baptizo, in classic Greek, 
means "to immerse/^ it does not follow that it is to 
be understood in this sense in the ISTew Testament. 
They discourse learnedly on the difference between 
classic and sacred Greek. They insist that baptizo 
has in the Scriptures a theological sense. In short, 
they forget what they have learned from Ernesti's 
Principles of Interpretation — namely, that " when God 
has spoken to men he has spoken in the language of 
men, for he has spoken by men and for men.^^ 

For the benefit of these ingenious critics, I quote 
from an able Methodist work on theology. The au- 
thor is showing, in opposition to the Socinian view, 
^ Family Expository p. 204. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. HI 

that the apostles, in referring to the death of Christ, 
employ terms which convey the idea of expiation. 
He says : " The use to be made of this in the argu- 
ment is that, as the apostles found the very terms they 
used with reference to the nature and efficacy of the 
death of Christ fixed in an expiatory signification 
among the Greeks, they could not, in honesty, use 
them in a distant figurative sense, much less in a 
contrary one, without due notice of their having in- 
vested them with a new import being given to their 
readers. ... In like manner, the Jews had their ex- 
piatory sacrifices, and the terms and phrases used in 
them are, in like manner, employed by the apostles to 
characterize the death of their Lord; and they would 
have been as guilty of misleading their Jewish as their 
Gentile readers had they employed them in a new sense 
and without warning, which, unquestionably, they 
never gave/^ * 

Dr. Hodge, in his Way of Life, expresses the same 
view. 

To all this I cordially subscribe. The apostles 
found in use among the people certain terms which 
conveyed to their minds the idea of expiation. They 
used those terms, and evidently in that sense. As 
honest men they could not do otherwise w^ithout giv- 
ing information of the fact. So reasons the accom- 
* E-icliard Watson's Theological Institutes^ vol. ii., p. 151. 



112 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

plished Richard Watson. Very well. The same 
apostles found the term baptizo fixed in its meaning, 
and that meaning was ^'to immerse.^^ Could they, 
then, "in honesty,^^ employ it to denote " sprinkle ^' 
and "pour'' without notifying their readers of the 
fact? Dr. Watson being judge, they could not. "Un- 
questionably,'' they never intimated to Jew or Gentile 
that they used the word in a new sense. Now, I in- 
sist that Methodists ought either to admit the validity 
of this argument in reference to baptizo or reject as 
inconclusive the reasoning against Socinians. It is to 
be remembered, also, that those who say that the 
scriptural meaning of baptizo differs from its classic 
meaning must prove it; the burden of proof is on 
them. If they say it means " to sprinkle," let them 
show it ; if they affirm that it means " to pour," let 
them establish tliis signification. If Dr. Beecher can 
do anything for his " purification theory," let him do 
it. Baptists occupy a position which commends itself 
to every unprejudiced mind. They say that baptizo^ 
among the Greeks, meant "to immerse," and that 
John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles used it in 
the same sense and just as the people understood it. 
I think it has now been shown that the classical 
meaning of baptizo is "immerse," and that it is per- 
fectly gratuitous to assert that its scriptural meaning 
diflPers from its classical import. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 113 

SECTION IV. 

The design of baptism furnishes an argument in favor of the 
position of Baptists. 

Ill the ordinance of baptism there is a profession of 
faith in Jesus Christ, as we may learn from Eph. iv. 5 : 
^^ One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'^ The term "Lord^* 
in this passage, as is generally the case in the Epistles, 
refers to Christ. He, having died and risen again, is 
presented in the gospel as the 01)ject of faith and the 
Author of salvation. Faith is a trustful acceptance 
of Christ as the Saviour. On a profession of this 
^^ one faith " in the " one Lord,'^ the '^ one baptism ^' 
is administered. Baptism is therefore a profession of 
faith. Take away the ^^one Lord,'^ and the '^one 
faith ^^ becomes vain, for there is no object of faith ; 
and the '^ one baptism '^ is vain also, for there is no 
faith of which it is the profession. If we transpose 
the terms of the passage, we see that the transposition 
is ruinous. If we put faith before the Lord, and bap- 
tism before faith, we invert the inspired order. If 
changed, the order is virtually abolished. 

Of baptism it may be said that it represents the 
burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This we 
learn from the following passages : '^ Know ye not 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are bur- 



10 * 



114 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

ied [Greek, weyx buried'] with him by baptism into 
death; that like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life. For if we have 
been planted together in the likeness of his death, 
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection f^ 
" Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
risen with him, through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead ;" " The like 
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us 
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ'^ (Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5; Col. ii. 12; 
1 Pet. iii. 21). 

It is clear from these passages that baptism has a 
commemorative reference to the burial and resurrec- 
tion of Christ. The two ordinances of the gospel 
symbolically proclaim its three great facts. These 
facts, as Paul teaches (I Cor. xv. 3, 4), are that Christ 
died, was buried, and rose again. The Lord's Supper 
commemorates the first fact ; all are agreed in this 
view. At his Table the disciples of Christ are sol- 
emnly reminded of his death. They weep over him 
as crucified — dead. In baptism they see him buried 
and raised again, just as they see him dead in tlie sacred 
Supper. Baptism is therefore a symbolic proclamation 
of two of the three prominent gospel facts — the burial 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 115 

and the resurrection of Christ. These facts are 
infinitely worthy of commemoration, and they are 
properly commemorated when the ordinances of the 
New Testament are observed according to their orig- 
inal design. This by the way. 

Baptism also expresses in emblem the believer's 
death to sin and resurrection to "newness of life.'^ 
In "repentance toward God and faith toward our 
Lord Jesus Christ" there occurs a spiritual death to 
sin, followed by a spiritual resurrection to a new life. 
These two facts are emblematically set forth in bap- 
tism. Hence the absurdity of baptizing any who are 
not dead to sin. We are baptized into the death of 
Christ. We profess our reliance on his death for sal- 
vation ; and we profess also that, as he died for sin, we 
have died to sin. As burial is a palpable separation 
of the dead from the living, so baptism is a symbolic 
separation of those dead to sin from those living in 
sin. As a resurrection from the dead indicates an 
entrance into a new sphere of existence, so baptism, 
in its similitude to a resurrection, denotes an entrance 
upon a new life. Dr. Chalmers, therefore, in his lec- 
ture on Rom. vi. 3-7, remarks that we "are conceived, 
in the act of descending under the water of baptism, 
to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascend- 
ing to emerge into a second or new life." There is an 
emblematic renunciation of " the old life," and there 



116 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

is an emblematic introduction into ^^the new life." 
William Tyndale very appropriately says, " The 
plunging into the water signifieth that we die and 
are buried with Christ as concerning the old life of 
sin, which is Adam. And the pulling out again sig- 
nifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, 
full of the Holy Ghost.'^ 

If baptism is a symbol of death to sin, it is of ne- 
cessity a symbol of regeneration, because death to sin 
is involved in regeneration. In the words '' washing 
of regeneration ^^ the abstract is probably used for the 
concrete, the meaning being " the washing of the re- 
generate." The much-controverted phrase " born of 
water" seems to refer to baptism. Burial in baptism 
has respect to immersion in water, while "born of 
water" — literally, "out of water" — has respect to 
emersion out of the watery envelopment which con- 
stitutes the symbolic burial. If baptism is a symbol 
of regeneration, it follows that regeneration must pre- 
cede it; for otherwise nothing would be symbolized. 
If, as some suppose, baptism effects regeneration, or is 
regeneration, then it cannot be a symbol ; for no sym- 
bol can produce that which it symbolizes, and no sym- 
bol can symbolize itself. In other words, the thing 
symbolized must have an existence, or there is no 
place for a symbol. This is plain to those who 
understand the philosophy of symbols. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 117 

Baptism is likewise a symbol of remission of sins, 
the washing away of sins, and moral purification. We 
therefore read in Acts ii. 38, " Repent and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
remission of sins/^ Many scriptures teach that sins 
are actually, really, remitted when the sinner believes 
in Christ; but there is a symbolic, formal, declarative 
remission in baptism. If sins are remitted when we 
believe in Christ, and if they are remitted when we 
are baptized, it is certain that the two remissions are 
not the same. The one is real, the other is symbolic. 
In the language addressed to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 
xxii. 16) — ^^Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord ^^ — there is 
not so much a contemplation of sins in the light of 
crimes needing remission as in the aspect of pollutions 
needing to be washed away. There is an actual wash- 
ing away of sins in the blood of Christ when faith 
unites the soul to him ; but there is a symbolic wash- 
ing away of sins in the baptismal waters. When our 
bodies are said to be washed " with pure water," bap- 
tism is referred to as the symbol of moral purification. 
The symbol has to do with the body, " the outer man,'^ 
because the soul, " the inner man,'^ has been washed in 
the blood of Jesus. The outward cleansing follows 
the inward purification. 

Baptism likewise anticipates the believer's resurrec- 



118 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

tion from the dead. This we learn from 1 Cor. xv. 
29 : " Else what shall they do which are baptized for 
the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why are they 
then baptized for the dead?'^ These questions are 
to be found in an argument of matchless power and 
beauty on the resurrection of the dead. Some of the 
Corinthians, it seems, denied the doctrine of the resur- 
rection ; yet it does not appear that they questioned 
the propriety of the observance of the ordinance of 
baptism. Paul virtually tells them that baptism has 
an anticipatory reference to the resurrection on the 
last day. It has this reference because it has a com- 
memorative reference to the resurrection of Christ. It 
anticipates because it commemorates. The reason is 
obvious. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus pro- 
cures the resurrection of his followers, and is an in- 
fallible pledge of it. The two resurrections are in- 
separable. Baptism, therefore, while it commemorates 
the resurrection of Christ, anticipates, of necessity, the 
resurrection of believers. Dr. Adam Clarke, distin- 
guished among Methodists, in his comment on the 
verse under consideration, says : " The sum of the 
apostle's meaning appears to be this : If there be no 
resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming 
Christians, expose themselves to all manner of priva- 
tions, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, 
can have no compensation, nor any motive sufficient 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES GF BAPTISTS. 119 

to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. 
But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death \\\ 
voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it 
as an emblem of the resan^ection unto eternal life in 
coming up out of the water: thus they are baptized 
for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection/^ 

That Dr. Clarke has given the meaning of this con- 
troverted passage there is, in my judgment, no ground 
for reasonable doubt. 

Now, if these views of the design and the emble- 
matic import of baptism are correct, it follows inevi- 
tably that the immersion in water of a believer in 
Christ is essential to baptism — so essential that with- 
out it there is no baptism. If baptism represents the 
burial and the resurrection of Christ, it must be im- 
mersion. Do the sprinkling and the pouring of water 
bear any resemblance to a burial and a resurrection ? 
Absolutely none. Immersion, however, bears a strik- 
ing resemblance to a burial and a resurrection. We 
are '^buried by baptism " — that is, by means of bap- 
tism. When the baptismal act is performed, there is 
a burial. The two things are inseparable, and there- 
fore where there is no ^^ buriaP^ there is no baptism. 
Were it necessary, I might show that Wall, White- 
field, Wesley, Doddridge, Chalmers, Macknight, 
Bloomfield, Barnes, and many others — all of them 
Pedobaptists — admit that the phrase ^' buried by bap- 



120 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

tism ^^ alludes to immersion. Some learned men, how- 
ever, insist that there is no reference to " water bap- 
tism/^ "Spiritual baptism/^ say they, '^is referred 
to/' They think to nulHfy in this way the argument 
for immersion. But do they accomplish their object? 
Let us see. I will meet them on their own chosen 
ground. Let it be conceded, then, for argument's 
sake, that "buried by baptism'' denotes spiritual 
baptism. Then there is a spiritual burial. Now, 
it is a well-settled point among Pedobaptists that the 
outward baptism is a sign of the inward. If, then, 
the inward baptism involves a spiritual burial, the 
outward baptism must involve a burial in water that 
it may represent the inward. Men may torture and 
put to the rack the phrase " buried by baptism," but 
it will testify of immersion. It cannot be divested of 
its reference to Christian immersion. 

To conclude the argument from the design of bap- 
tism : How stands the matter ? If baptism commemo- 
rates the burial and the resurrection of Christ, it must 
be immersion. If it Ls an emblematic representation 
of death to sin and resurrection to newness of life, the 
representation is essentially incomplete without immer- 
sion. If it symbolizes the remission of sins, the washing 
away of sins, and moral purification, the purposes of 
the symbol require immersion. The fulness of the 
remission, the thoroughness of the washing, and the 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 121 

completeness of the purification demand an act affect- 
ing the whole body. If there is something in baptism 
that anticipates and resembles the resurrection of the 
dead, still it must be immersion. Sprinkling and 
pouring are as unlike a resurrection as they are un- 
like a burial. 

Let baptism be considered a representation of the 
facts illustrated in the design of the ordinance, and 
it will appear not only an impressive symbol, but a 
combination of symbols as beautiful as they are solemn. 
If another form of expression is preferred, it may be 
said that kindred elements come together and consti- 
tute the symbol. In immersion alone is there a recog- 
nition of these elements, and therefore immersion alone 
is the symbol. No act but immersion in water, followed 
by emersion out of water ^ meets the demands of the sym- 
bol. Any other act vitiates the symbolic import of 

baptism. 

SECTION V. 

The places selected for the administration of baptism and 
the circumstances attending its administration^ as refer- 
red to in the New Testament, supply an additional argu- 
ment in proof of the position of Baptists. 

John baptized in Jordan. That the Jordan is a suit- 
able stream for purposes of immersion is manifest from 
the testimony of one of the most distinguished of 

modern travellers and scholars, Dr. Edward Robinson, 
11 



122 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Speaking of the Jordan, he says, " We estimated the 
breadth of the stream to be from eighty to one hun- 
dred feet. The guides supposed it to be now ten or 
twelve feet deep. I bathed in the river without going 
out into the deep channel." * 

Even Dr. Lightfoot, who was quite conspicuous in 
his opposition to immersion in the Westminster As- 
sembly, uses the following language : '' That the baptism 
of John was by plunging the body seems to appear 
from those things which are related of him — namely, 
that he baptized in Jordan; that he baptized in Enon^ 
because there was much tenter there; and that Christ, 
being baptized, came up out of the water; to which 
that seems to be parallel (Acts viii. 38), 'Philip and 
the eunuch went down into the water J " f 

I am aware that Pedobaptists — many of them, at 
least — argue that John's was not Christian baptism, 
that he did not live under the Christian Dispensation, 
etc. Dissenting most earnestly from these views, I 
waive a consideration of them as foreign to my present 
purpose. It is sufficient for me to say that even if it 
could be shown that John's was not Christian baptism 
it w^ould avail Pedobaptists nothing. John performed 
an act called baptism, and various circumstances, as 
well as the meaning of the word, indicate that that act 

* Biblical Researches in Palestine^ vol. ii., p. 256. 

t Quoted in Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary y vol. v., p. 325. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 123 

was immersion. Pedobaptists attempt to invalidate 
the force of those circumstances by denying that John 
administered Christian baptism. But they admit that 
the apostles, after the resurrection of Christ, adminis- 
tered Christian baptism. Very well. The same term 
used to designate the act performed by John is used to 
denote the act performed by them. It must therefore 
be the same act. Surely, no one will say that the word 
"baptize^' means one thing in its connection with 
John's ministry and a different thing in connection 
with the ministry of the apostles. Hence I repeat 
that if it could be shown that John's was not Christian 
baptism it would amount to nothing. 

There is another Pedobaptist view which requires 
notice. It is that Christ was baptized to initiate him 
into the priestly office. A few questions will place 
this matter in its proper light: Was not Christ "made 
a priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not after 
the order of Aaron " ? How could he be a priest 
according to the law of Moses, when he was of the 
" tribe of Judah " ? Was not the priestly office con- 
fined to the tribe of Levi, and to the family of Aaron 
in that tribe? Did not the law sav, "The strano^er 
that Cometh nigh shall be put to death"? All that 
Pedobaptists say about the baptismal initiation of 
Christ into the priestly office is at war with the 
Scriptures. Why this attempt to show that the Sa- 



124 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

viour was made a priest by liis baptism ? The object 
seems to be to evade the moral power of his example; 
for no man who will lay aside his prejudices can deny 
that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan. But if the 
people can be made to believe that the baptism of 
Christ had reference to his priestly consecration, they 
will feel comparatively exempt from obligation to fol- 
low his example, as they are not baptized that they 
may become priests. Jesus, in his baptism as well as 
in other respects, has " left us an example that we 
should follow his steps.^^ 

Returning from this apparent digression, I may say 
again that the Jordan was unquestionably a suitable 
stream for purposes of immersion; that John baptized 
in it; and that Jesus, when baptized, ^^ went up straiglit- 
way out of the water.'^ John also baptized "in Enon 
near to Salim '' (John iii. 23). Why ? Let Dr. Miller 
answer. He says: "Independently of immersion al- 
together, plentiful streams of water were absolutely 
necessary for the constant refreshment and sustenance 
of the many thousands who were encamped from day 
to day to witness the preaching and the baptism of 
this extraordinary man; together with the beasts 
employed for their transportation. Only figure to 
yourselves a large encampment of men, women, and 
children, etc. ... As a poor man who lived in the 
wilderness, whose raiment was of the meanest kind, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 125 

and whose food was such alone as the desert afforded, 
it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate 
vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by- 
pouring or sprinkling. He therefore seems to have 
made use of the neighboring stream of water for this 
purpose, descending its banks and setting his feet on 
its margin, so as to admit of his using a handful to 
answer the symbolic purpose intended by the applica- 
tion of water in baptism/' * 

What to call this extract I do not know. It seems 
to be a mixture of assertion, supposition, and fiction. 
Where did Dr. Miller learn that ^' plentiful streams 
of water were absolutely necessary ^^ for the purposes 
which he specifies? What he says about ^^a large en- 
campment'' must have been a day-dream, as also his 
reference to "beasts" and "transportation." The 
evangelists say nothing of the "encampment" and 
make no allusion to the " beasts." Poverty is an 
inconvenience, but not a crime ; and I therefore take 
no offence at the reference to the indio;ence of the first 
Baptist preacher. It may, however, be questioned 
whether John was not able to own " appropriate ves- 
sels" for purposes of "pouring or sprinkling." But, 
admitting his extreme poverty when he went to the 
Jordan to baptize, he then became so popular that an 
intimation from him that he needed "appropriate 

* Miller On Baptism: Four Discourses, pp. 92, 93. 
11 ♦ 



126 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

vessels ^^ would have secured as many as the " beasts " 
could transport. Why did he not; then, get '^ vessels'^ 
and supersede the necessity of his going to the Jordan, 
and to "Enon near to Salim, because there was much 
water there '^ ? Would not Herod also have furnished 
^' appropriate vessels ^^ at the time when he " did many 
things, and heard John gladly '^ ? 

Dr. N. L. Rice, having been a pupil of Dr. Miller, 
adopted his view of the matter before us. He there- 
fore, in his Debate with Alexander Campbell (p. 193), 
uses these words : " John, it is true, was baptizing 
in Enon near Salim, because there was much water 
there. But did he want much water to baptize in, 
or did he want it for other purposes ? As I have 
already stated, multitudes of the Jews who resorted 
to him remained together several days at a time. 
They must observe their daily ablutions. For these 
and for ordinary purposes they needed much water; 
but it cannot be proved that John wanted the water 
for the purpose of baptizing.^^ 

Theologians should, of course, be wise men, but 
thev outrht not to be ^' wise above that which is writ- 
ten.'^ Where did Dr. Rice learn that the "multi- 
tudes'^ who went to John "remained together several 
days'' ? Who told him about those " daily ablutions"? 
By what sort of logic can it be shown that the Jews 
^^ needed much water" for other purposes, but not for 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 127 

baptismal purposes, when baptism is the only thing 
requiring water mentioned in the controverted pas- 
sage? 

It is humiliating to know that such men . as Drs. 
Miller and Rice have used the lano;uao:e that has been 
quoted. Let modern teachers now keep silence, and 
let an evangelist speak. AVhat does he say? Here 
are his inspired words : "And John also was baptizing 
in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water 
there: and they came, and were baptized^' (John iii. 
23). Is there anything here about " encampments,^^ 
" beasts,^^ " daily abhitions,^^ etc. ? Did not the people 
go to John to be baptized? — not to encamp, not to 
provide water for their " beasts,'^ not to " observe their 
daily ablutions.'^ Did not John select Enon as a 
suitable place for his purpose " because there was 
much water there"? Did he not need '^much water" 
in baptizing? and is not this a strong argument in 
favor of immersion? No act performed on the body 
requires so " much water" as the act of immersing in 
water. I write in plainness and in sorrow when I 
say that those who expound the passage under con- 
sideration as Drs. Miller and Rice have done assign a 
reason fqr John's selection of Enon as a baptismal 
place which the Holy Spirit has not assigned. The 
doing of such a thing involves fearful responsibility. 

To demolish all that has ever been said about John's 



128 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

selecting places where there was " much water " for 
other than baptismal purposes^ I need only state a few 
facts. We are told that in the early part of the Sa- 
viour's ministry " great multitudes followed him ;'' 
subsequently, he miraculously fed " four thousand/' 
and at another time "five thousand men, besides 
women and children f and on another occasion "there 
were gathered together an innumerable multitude of 
people, insomuch that they trod one upon another/' 
But there was nothing said about water. It is not 
said that Jesus, " seeing the multitudes,'' went where 
there was " much water," that the people might be 
refreshed, but " he went up into a mountain." Was 
he less considerate than was John of the comfort of 
the crowds that attended him ? We cannot believe it. 
Still, there is nothing said about " much water " in 
connection with the multitudes that gathered around 
him. But w^e are told of " much water " in the ac- 
count given of John's baptism in Enon. He " was 
baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was 
much water there." It is vain, and worse than vain, 
to deny that "much water " was required in baptism. 
This would not have been the case if baptism had not 
been immersion. Of the many acts popularly called 
baptism, there is only one — the act of immersion — 
that requires "much water;" and it is certain that 
this is the act performed by John the Baptist. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 129 

The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, as recorded 
in Acts viii. 38, 39, is worthy of special notice. The 
sacred historian says, "And they went down both into 
the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he bap- 
tized him ;" "And when they were come up out of the 
w^ater,^' etc. It has been often said that going into the 
water does not necessarily imply immersion. This is 
true. It is possible to go "down into water ^^ and 
"come up out of w^ater^^ without being immersed. 
But suppose, as in the case before us, between the two 
movements the act of baptism occurs. What then ? 
Evidently the word "baptize" must determine the 
nature of that act. This is the view held by Baptists. 
They say, with strongest emphasis, that the term " bap- 
tize '^ shows what act Philip performed after he w^ent 
down with the eunuch into the water ; and they confi- 
dently appeal to all Greek literature, secular and 
sacred, in support of the position that baptizo means 
" to immerse.'^ Hence they would be as fully satis- 
fied as they now are of the eunuch's immersion if not 
one word had been said about the descent into the 
water. Still, they regard the going down into the 
water and the coming up out of the water as furnish- 
ing a very strong circumstantial proof of immersion. 
They assume that Philip and the eunuch were men of 
good sense, and therefore did not go into the w^ater for 
purposes of " pouring or sprinkling." 



130 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Bat it is often said that the Greek preposition eis, 
translated ^'into/^ means ^^to/^ and that Philip and 
the eunuch went only to the water. As sensible men 
they would not have done this if sprinkling or pour- 
ing had been the act to be performed. 

With reference to this little word eis, Dr. Summers, 
in his book Oji Baptism (p. 100), says : ^^ When eis 
means ' into/ it is used before the noun as well as be- 
fore the verb.^^ The argument based on this statement is 
that, as eis is used but once in Acts viii. 38, Philip and 
the eunuch did not go into, but only to, the water ; and 
the conclusion is that *^ the eunuch was not immersed.'^ 

I concede everything which truth requires me to 
concede to Dr. Summers. It is true that when en- 
trance into a place or thing is denoted eis is frequently 
used twice — once in composition with the verb, and 
once before the noun or pronoun ; but in numberless 
instances it is used but once to express the same idea of 
entrance. Let any Greek scholar turn to Matt. ii. 11- 
14, 20-22, and he will find eis but once in the phrases 
" into the house,'^ " into their own country,^' ^^ into 
Egypt,^^ ^^into the land of IsraeV^ and "into the 
parts of Galilee.^^ If, then, Dr. Summers^s statement 
is true without qualification, the " wise men '^ did 
not go '^into the house ^^ and did not return ^' into 
their own country,'' nor was Joseph required to "flee 
into Egypt " and to " go into the land of Israel.'' 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 131 

Again, if Dr. Summers is right in his assertion, the 
demons referred to in Matt. viii. 31-33 did not enter 
^^ into the swine/^ and tlie swine did not run '^ into the 
sea/' and the keepers of the swine did not go ^^ into 
the city.'' In all these places eis is used but once. 
It seems, also, that the Saviour, in Matt. ix. 17, did 
not speak of putting wine into bottles, but only to 
bottles ; for eis is used but once. Query : How could 
the ^' new wine " break the " old bottles " without being 
put into them? Once more: It is said in Matt. xxv. 
46, "And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment, but the righteous into life eternal." Here, also, 
eis is used but once; and, according to Dr. Summers 
and many others, the wicked do not go " into everlast- 
ing punishment" nor the righteous ^^ into life eternal." 
But in these passages Pedobaptists very readily admit 
that eis means " into." They have no objection to this 
meaning unless baptismal waters are referred to. 

This little word eis is a strange word indeed if all 
said of it is true. It will take a man into a country, 
into a city, into a house, into a ship, into heaven, into 
hell — into any place in the universe except the water. 
Poor word ! Afflicted, it seems, with hydrophobia, 
it will allow a person to go to the water, but not into 
it. However, where baptism is not referred to, it may 
denote entrance into water, as in Mark ix. 22 : "And 
ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire and into the 



132 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

waters to destroy him." Unfortunate boy ! that eisy 
though used but once, thrust him '' into the fire and 
into the waters." 

Pedobaptists are very unreasonable in their manage- 
ment of the baptismal controversy. They insist that 
it is utterly improbable that water could be found in 
Jerusalem for the immersion of three thousand persons 
on the day of Pentecost — that there is no mention of 
a stream of \vater in connection with the baptism of 
Saul of Tarsus and the jailer. One would imagine 
that if there was anything said about '^ a river/' ^^ much 
water," something would be at once conceded in favor 
of immersion. But not so. For when Baptists refer 
to the Jordan or Enon, where there was " much water," 
or to the water into which Philip and the eunuch went 
down, Pedobaptists argue that an abundance of water 
by no means indicates that the act of immersion was 
performed. We cannot please them at all. They are 
like the Jewish children in the market-places. If we 
pipe to them, they will not dance ; if we mourn to 
them, they will not lament. If there is no mention 
of a ^^ river" in a baptismal narrative of the New 
Testament, the cry is, " No immersion " and " Scarcity 
of water." If the river Jordan is named, the same cry 
of ^^ No immersion" is heard; so that, according to 
Pedobaptist logic, scarcity of water and abundance of 
water prove the same thing ! How are we to meet in 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 133 

argument men wlio draw the same conclusion from 
premises as far apart as " from the centre thrice to the 
utmost pole^^? 

John Calvin felt the force of the argument in favor 
of immersion derived from the places selected for the 
administration of baptism. Hence, in his commentary 
(translated by Rev. William Pringle, Edinburgh, and 
printed for the Calvin Translation Society), he remarks 
on John iii. 22, 23 : " From these words we may infer 
that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging 
the whole body beneath the water.'^ On Acts viii» 38 
he says : " Here we see the rite used among the men 
of old time in baptism ; for they put all the body into 
the water. Now, the use is this, that the minister 
doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we 
ought not to stand so much about a small difference of 
a ceremony that we should therefore divide the church 
or trouble the same with brawls. . . . Wherefore the 
church did grant liberty to herself since the beginning 
to change the rites somewhat, excepting the substance.'^ 
So much for the testimony of the great Calvin. 

Before proceeding to the historical argument for 
immersion, I will say that if baptizo means "to 
immerse,^' it does not mean " sprinkle ^^ or "pour.'' 
If it means "sprinkle,'' it does not mean " immerse '^ 
or "pour." If it means "pour," it does not mean 
"sprinkle" or "immerse." It is at war with the 

12 



134 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

philosophy of language to say that the word can denote 
three acts so dissimilar. Did not Jesus Christ, in enjoin- 
ing baptism, give a specific command ? If he did not, 
it is impossible to know what he requires, and the 
impossibility releases from all obligation to obey the 
requirement. I say boldly that it is not the duty of 
any man to be baptized if he cannot know what bap- 
tism is. All candid persons must admit that the 
Saviour gave a specific command when he enjoined 
baptism on believers. If so, he did not require them 
to be immersed in water, or that water be sprinkled 
or poured on them. He did not require any one of 
three things; for on this supposition the command 
loses its specific character. The matter, then, comes 
to this point : Did Christ require believers to be im- 
mersed in water, or to have water applied to them by 
sprinkling or pouring ? 

Now, if the word " baptize ^^ in the New Testament 
means ^^sprinkle^^ or "pour,'^ as Pedobaptists insist, 
and if baptism is an " application of water,^^ is it not 
very remarkable that water is never said to be bap- 
tized upon the subjects of the ordinance, and never 
said to be applied ? If " baptize'' means " to sprinkle '' 
or ^^ pour," the water is baptized, not the person. 

We cannot speak of sprinkling a man without an 
ellipsis or figure of speech ; and no one would expect 
an ellipsis or figure of speech in the Apostolic Com- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 135 

mission. Sprinkling implies the separation and scat- 
tering of the particles of the substance sprinkled. A 
man cannot be poured, because pouring implies a con- 
tinuous stream of the substance poured. I say, again, 
that if "baptize "in the New Testament means "sprin- 
kle " or "' pour," the water is baptized. But nowhere is 
water found in the objective case after the verb " bap- 
tize " in the active voice, and nowhere is it the subject 
of the verb in the passive voice. We never read, " I 
baptize water upon you," but, "I baptize you.^^ It is 
never said that water was baptized upon them, but it is 
said that " they loere baptized^ both men and women." 
The subjects of the ordinance are baptized, the water 
is not; and therefore "baptize" in the New Testa- 
ment signifies neither "sprinkle" nor "pour." But 
substitute "immerse" for it, and how plain and beau- 
tiful is every baptismal narrative ! I immerse you, 
not the water. They were immersed — that is, the 
"meyi and women J' The plainness of this view ren- 
ders a further elucidation of the point needless. 

SECTION VI. 

Sistory bears testimony to the practice of immersion, except 
in cases of sickness and urgent necessity , for more than 
thirteen hundred years. 

I avail myself, as I have already done, of Pedobap- 
tist witnesses. My first witness is Richard Baxter, 



136 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

author of the Sainfs Rest. He says, "It is com- 
monly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our 
commentators declare, that in the apostles' times the 
baptized were dipped over head in the water, and that 
this signified their profession both of believing the 
burial and resurrection of Christ, and of their own 
present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to 
sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of 
life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as 
the apostle expoundeth in the forecited texts of Col. 
ii. and Rom. vi.'' * 

The celebrated Dr. Samuel Johnson refers to the 
Roman Catholics as in the Lord's Supper giving the 
bread to the laity and withholding the cup from them. 
He says, " They may think that in what is merely rit- 
ual, deviations from the primitive mode may be ad- 
mitted on the ground of convenience; and I think 
they are as well warranted to make this alteration as 
we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the 
ancient baptism." f 

John Wesley, in his Journal of Feb. 21, 1736, 
writes as follows : " Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, 
was baptized, according to the custom of the first 
church and the rule of the Church of England, by 



immersion.'^ 



* Quoted in Booth^s Pedohaptism Examined. 
f Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. ii., p. 383. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 137 

Dr. Miller, with his bitter opposition to immersion, 
says : " It is not denied that for the first few centuries 
after Christ the most common mode of administering 
baptism was by immersion/^ * 

The learned Mosheim, in his Church History ^ says 
of the first century : " The sacrament of baptism was 
administered in this century, w^ithout the public assem- 
blies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, 
and was performed by an immersion of the whole body 
in the baptismal font/^ Of the second century he says : 
" The persons that were to be baptized, after they had 
repeated the Creed, confessed and renounced their sins, 
and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, 
were immersed under water and received into Christ's 
kingdom/^ Of the fourth century he writes thus : 
*^ Baptismal fonts were now erected in the porch of 
each church, for the more commodious administration 
of that initiating sacrament.'^ f 

The celebrated church historian Neander, in his 
letter to Rev. Willard Judd, expresses himself thus : 
"As to your question on the original rite of baptism, 
there can be no doubt whatever that in the primitive 
times the ceremony was performed by immersion, to 
signify a complete immersion into the new principle 
of life divine which was to be imparted by the Mes- 

* Sermons on Baptism, p. 116. 

f Maclaine's Mosheim (in two vols.), vol. i., pp. 46, 69, 121. 
12 * 



138 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

siah. AVhen St. Paul says that through baptism we 
are buried with Christ, and rise again with him, he 
unquestionably alludes to tlie symbol of dipping into, 
and rising again out of, the water. The practice of 
immersion in the first centuries was beyond all doubt 
prevalent in the whole church ; the only exception was 
made with the baptism of the sick, hence termed bap- 
tisma clinicorum, which was performed merely by 
sprinkling.^^ * I might quote other testimony like 
this from Neander's Church History and his Planting 
and Training of the Christian Church, but the fore- 
going from the great Lutheran is sufficient. 

Dr. Whitby of the Church of England, in his com- 
mentary, says on Rom. vi. 4, " It being so expressly 
declared here and in Col. ii. 12 that we are ' buried 
with Christ in baptism ^ by being buried under water, 
and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his 
death by dying to sin being taken hence, and this 
immersion being religiously observed by all Christians 
for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and 
the change of it into sprinkling, even without any 
allowance from the Author of the institution, or any 
license from any Council of the church, being that 
which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal 
of the cup to the laity, — it were to be wished that this 
custom might be again of general use, and aspersion 
* See Appendix to Judd's Review of Stuart, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 139 

only permitted, as of old, in case of clinici or those 
in present danger of death /^ 

What says Professor Stuart? Quoting Augusti, 
who refers to the ancient practice of immersion as ^^ a 
thing made out/' he says: ^*So, indeed, all the writers 
M^ho have thoroughly investigated this subject con- 
clude. I know of no one usage of ancient times 
which seems to be more clearly and certainly made 
out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid 
man who examines the subject to deny this.'' Again : 
"The mode of baptism by immersion the Oriental 
Church has always continued to preserve, even down 
to the present time. The members of this church are 
accustomed to call the members of the Western churches 
sprinkled Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt. 
They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but ^ im- 
merge/ and that ^baptism by sprinkling' is as great a 
solecism as ^immersion by aspersion ;' and they claim 
to themselves the honor of having preserved the an* 
cient sacred rite of the church free from change and 
corruption which would destroy its significancy." * 

As immersion was the general practice for more 
than thirteen hundred years, the reader may wish to 
know how it has been to so lamentable an extent 
superseded by sprinkling. The following quotations 
explain the matter. 

* Stuart On the Mode of Baptism^ pp. 75-77. 



140 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism^ speak- 
ing of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which continued 
from A. D. 1558 to 1603, says: "It being allowed to 
weak children (tho' strong enough to be brought to 
church) to be baptized by affusion, many fond ladies 
and gentlewomen first, and then by degrees the com- 
mon people, would obtain the favor of the priest to 
have their children pass for w^eak children too ten- 
der to endure dipping in water. Especially (as Mr. 
Walker observes) if some instance really were^ or were 
but fancied or framedy of some child^s taking hurt by 
it. And another thing that had a greater influence 
than this was : That many of our English divines and 
other people had, during Queen Mary's bloody reign, 
fled into Germany, Switzerland, etc., and, coming back 
in Queen Elizabeth's time, they brought with them 
a great love to the customs of those Protestant churches 
wherein they had sojourned. And especially the au- 
thority of Calvin, and the rules which he had estab- 
lished at Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great 
number of our people about that time. Now, Calvin had 
not only given his Dictate, in his Institutions, that the 
difference is of no moment, whether he that is baptized 
be dipt all over ; and if so, whether thrice or once; or 
whether he be ordy wetted with the icater poured on him: 
But he had also drawn up for the use of his church at 
Geneva (and afterward published to the world) a form 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 141 

of administering the sacraments^ where, when he conies 
to the order of baptizing, he words it thus : Then the 
minister of baptism pours water on the infant; saying, 
I baptize thee, etc. There had been, as I said, some 
Synods in some Dioceses of France that had spoken 
of affusion without mentioning immersion at all ; that 
being the common practice : but for an Office or Lit- 
urgy of any church ; this is, I believe the first in the 
world that prescribes affusion absolutely." 

Dr. Wall also refers to the influence of the West- 
minster Assembly in substituting pouring and sprink- 
ling for immersion. That Assembly not only made a 
" Confession of Faith," but a " Directory for the Pub- 
lic Worship of God," in which ^' pouring or sprink- 
ling" is declared "not only lawful, but sufficient and 
most expedient." Such a declaration surely would 
not have been made if " pouring " and " sprinkling " 
had not been of comparatively recent origin in Eng- 
land. This, however, by way of parenthesis. Dr. 
Wall sa}^ : " So (parallel to the rest of their reforma- 
tions) they reformed the Font into a Basin. This 
Learned Assembly could not remember that Fonts to 
baptize in had been always used by the primitive 
Christians, long before the beginning of popery ; and 
ever since churches were built: But that sprinkling, 
for the common use of baptizing, was really intro- 
duced (in France first, and then in other Popish 



142 DISTIJ^CTIVE FEINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

countries) in times of Popery : And that accordingly 
all those countries in which the usurped power of the 
Pope is^ or has formerly been, owned have left off dip- 
ping of children in the Font: But that all other coun- 
tries in the world (which had never regarded his au- 
thority) do still use it : And that Basins, except in case 
of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other 
Christians whatsoever, till by themselves. The use 
was : The minister continuing in his reading Desk, 
the child was brought and held below him : And 
there was placed for that use a little Basin of water 
about the bigness of a syllabub pot, into which the 
minister dipping his fingers, and then holding his 
hand over the face of the child, some drops would 
fall from his fingers on the child's face. For the 
Directory says, it is not only lawful^ but most ex- 
pedientj to use pouring or sprinkling.'^ * 

I quote also, in vindication of the " truth of his- 
tory," from the Edinburgh Encydopcediay edited by 
Sir David Brewster, a very distinguished Pedobaptist. 
It contains the following account of "sprinkling:'^ 
" The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the 
following manner: Pope Stephen II., being driven 
from Rome by Astolphus, King of the Lombards, in 
753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had 
usurped the crown of France. While he remained 

* History of Infant Baptism, part ii., chap. ix. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 143 

there the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted 
him whether in case of necessity baptism performed 
by pouring water on the head of the infant would 
be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But 
thouo-h the truth of this fact should be allowed — 
which, however, some Catholics deny — yet pouring 
or sprinkling w^as admitted only in cases of necessity. 
It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in 
a Council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or 
sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country [Scot- 
land], however, sprinkling was never practised in 
ordinary cases till after the Reformation ; and in 
England, even in the reign of Edward VI., trine 
immersion was commonly observed. But during the 
persecution of Mary many persons, most of whom 
were Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and 
there greedily imbibed the opinions of that church. 
In 1556 a book was published at that place contain- 
ing ^ The Form of Prayers and Ministration of Sacra- 
ments, approved by the famous and godly learned 
man, John Calvin,' in which the administrator is en- 
joined to take water in his hand and lay it on the 
child's forehead. These Scottish exiles, who had re- 
nounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknow- 
ledged the authority of Calvin, and. returning to their 
own country, with John Knox at their head, in 1559, 
established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland 



144 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

this practice made its way into England in the reign 
of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the Estab- 
lished Church/^ * 

My last quotation bearing on the history of bap- 
tism I make from Dean Stanley of the Church of 
England. In his article on " Baptism '^ in the Nine- 
teenth Century for October, 1879, in referring to im- 
mersion, he says : " Even in the Church of England 
it is still observed in theory. Elizabeth and Edward 
VI. were both immersed. The rubric in the Public 
Baptism for Infants enjoins that, unless for special 
cases, they are to be dipped, not sprinkled. But 
in practice it gave way since the beginning of the 
seventeenth century. . . . The reason of the change 
is obvious. The practice of immersion, apostolic 
and primitive as it w^as, was peculiarly suitable to 
the southern and eastern countries, for w^hich it was 
designed, and peculiarly unsuitable to the tastes, the 
convenience, and the feelings of the countries of the 
North and West. Not by any decree of Council or 
Parliament, but by the general sentiment of Christian 
liberty, this great change w^as effected. Not beginning 
till the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the 
ancient Catholic usage out of the whole of Europe. 
There is no one who would now wish to go back to the 
old practice. It had, no doubt, the sanction of the 
* Article " Baptism." 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 145 

apostles and of their Master. It had the sanction of 
the venerable churches of the early ages and of the 
sacred countries of the East. Baptism by sprinkling 
Avas rejected by the whole ancient church (except in 
the rare case of deathbeds or extreme necessity) as no 
baptism at all/^ 

In speaking of the decision of " the Christian civ- 
ilized world ^^ against immersion, he says : " It is a 
striking example of the triumph of common sense 
and convenience over the bondage of form and custom. 
Perhaps no greater change has ever taken place in the 
outward form of Christian ceremony with such general 
agreement. It is a greater change even than that which 
the Roman Catholic Church has made in administering 
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the bread with- 
out the wine. For that was a change which did not af- 
fect the thing that was signified ; whereas the change 
from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger 
part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and 
has altered the very meaning of the word.'' 

Dean Stanley's testimony to historical facts can be 

safely accepted ; but when he said that the change of 

immersion into sprinkling was a ^^ triumph of common 

sense and convenience," his language can be accounted 

for in one way : he was what is termed a ^* Broad 

Churchman," and his views were quite elastic. There 

is no very great difference between a German Ration- 
is 



146 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 

alist and an English Broad Churchman. It would be 
out of place now for me to enter into a descriptive 
detail of the opinions of either. 

If I have not proved that immersion was practised 
for more than thirteen hundred years, except in cases 
of sickness and urgent necessity, I may well despair 
of proving anything. He who is not convinced by 
the testimony adduced in support of this fact would 
not be " persuaded though one should rise from the 
dead.^^ What, then, is to be said of those Pedobap- 
tists who assert that '^ it cannot be proved that immer- 
sion was practised before the sixteenth century " ? 
They should study church history, and from it they 
would learn that until the last few hundred years 
immersion was the general rule, and aspersion the 
exception. They M^ould learn that at one period the 
validity of a copious pouring of water on the entire 
persons of the sick on their beds, instead of baptism, 
was seriously called in question, and by some positively 
denied. They would ascertain that many more infants 
had been immersed in water than ever had water 
sprinkled or poured on them. The man who denies 
this fact knows very little about ecclesiastical history. 
Immersion, however, so far as infants are concerned, 
is no better than sprinkling. Neitlier is commanded 
in the word of God, and both belong to the large 
family of human traditions. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 147 

SECTION VII. 
Pedohaptist objections answered. 

These are numerous, and all of them cannot be 
referred to in a book like this. I will, however, re- 
fer to the most prominent objections that have come to 
my notice. They are the following : 

1, It is said that John baptized^ noting but at, Jor- 
dan, 

Episcopalians and Methodists are precluded from a 
resort to this objection, for the " Book of Common 
Prayer ^^ and the "Disciplined^ both teach that Jesus 
was baptized "m the Jordan.'^ In all the range of 
Greek literature the preposition en, used in Matt. iii. 
6, and translated "in'^ means "in.^^ Harrison, who is 
high authority on "Greek prepositions," refers to it 
as "the same with the Latin and English ^in'^^ (p. 
243). It is a suggestive fact that our " in '^ comes to 
us through the Latin tongue from the Greek en, A 
child at a very early age learns w^hat "in'^ means. 
To make the point before us plain it needs only to be 
said that John "baptized in the wilderness.^^ Here 
we have the same "in" representing the Greek en. 
How would it do to say that John baptized at the 
wilderness? The Greek is surely a strange lan- 
guage if it has no preposition meaning " in ;" and if 
en has not this meaning, there is no word in the Ian- 



148 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

guage that has. Let any Greek scholar try to express 
in Greek the idea of being in a place, in a house, or 
in a river without the use of en. The meaning of en 
is " in," as that of eis is '' into f and therefore it 
follows that John baptized in the Jordan, not cd it. 

2. John^ it is said, baptized '^ with water T 

It is insisted that ^'with water" implies that the 
water was applied in baptism. It is enough to say, 
in answer to this objection, that Baptists never im- 
merse without water. John speaks of baptism in 
water, in the Holy Spirit, and in fire. King James's 
translators probably rendered en " with " to make 
what they thought an emphatic distinction between 
the baptismal elements. They were wrong. Every 
scholar knows that the proper rendering is " in water." 
The little preposition en here also acts a conspicuous 
part. It is as proper to say that John baptized with 
the wilderness and with the Jordan as that he bap- 
tized with w^ater. In the first two instances en is 
translated "in," and why should it be rendered 
"with" in the last? But, as I have said. Baptists 
do not immerse without water. If it is affirmed that 
the clothes were washed with water, does it follow that 
they were not dipped into it? Surely not. 

3. It is urged with great confidence that three thousand 
persons could not have been immersed on the day of 
Pentecost. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 149 

It IS supposed that there was not sufficient water 
for the purpose. Indeed ! Where now is the '' much 
water ^^ that Dr. Rice found necessary for the "daily 
ablutions ^^ of the Jews? They certainly performed 
their " ablutions ^^ at home if they could not be dis- 
pensed with when they went to John's baptism. Jeru- 
salem, according to Dr. Edward Robinson, "would 
appear always to have had a full supply of water for 
its inhabitants, both in ancient and modern times. In 
the numerous sieges to which, in all ages, it has been 
exposed, we nowhere read of any want of water within 
the city.'' * 

Where people can live, there is sufficient water for 
purposes of immersion. But why dwell on this point? 
If Jerusalem had been situated on the Mediterranean 
Sea, many Pedobaptists would not permit eis to take 
the three thousand converts into its waters. They are 
no more willing to admit immersion where there is an 
abundance of water than where there is a supposed 
scarcity. 

But it is insisted that it was impossible, even if there 

was water enough, for three thousand to be immersed 

in one day, and that therefore water must have been 

sprinkled or poured on them. I answer that it takes 

about as much time to sprinkle or pour as to immerse. 

Much the greater portion of time, in modern baptisms, 

* Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. i., p. 479. 
13* 



150 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

is occupied in repeating the words of the baptismal 
ceremony. If it is said that sprinkling or pouring 
was more expeditiously performed in ancient than in 
modern times, I have an equal right to say the same 
thing of immersion. If the apostles alone baptized 
on the day of Pentecost (which, however, cannot be 
proved), they could have immersed the three thousand. 
If Pedobaptists deny this, let them account for the 
historical fact that Austin, the monk sent by Pope 
Gregory the Great into England in the year 597, 
" consecrated the river Swale, near York, in which he 
caused ten thousand of his converts to be baptized in 
one day.^^ They were immersed. 

4. It is tJiought to militate against immersion that the 
Holy Spirit is said to be poured out. 

If so, it militates equally against sprinkling. If 
pouring is baptism, why is not the Spirit sometimes 
said to be baptized? He is said to be poured out. 
There is as much difference between the pouring out 
of the Spirit and baptism in the Spirit as there is 
between the pouring of water into a baptistery and 
the immersion of a person in that water. Those bap- 
tized ^^with the Holy Spirit'^ — or, rather, "f?! the 
Holy Spirit ^^ — are placed under the influence of the 
Spirit, just as a person baptized in water is put under 
the influence of the water. It is the prerogative of 
Christ to baptize in the Holy Spirit. If, as Pedobap- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 151 

lists insist, pouring is baptism because the Holy Spirit 
is said to be poured out, what follows? Why, that as 
the Spirit is said to be "given,^' to ^^ testify,^' to " fill,^' 
and to "speak,'^ therefore giving, testifying, filling, 
speaking, are all baptism ! This, surely, will not be 
claimed. 

5. Saul of Tarsus, it is affirmed, was baptized stand-- 
ing up. 

The argument assumes that when it is said (Acts 
ix. 18) that Saul "arose and was baptized,'^ the mean- 
ing is he "stood up and was baptized/^ In the Greek 
the participle anastas is used, and it comes from a verb 
found in the New Testament more than a hundred 
times, rendered in a few places "stood up,^^ and in a 
hundred places " rise,^^ " arise,'^ or " raise/^ Wherever 
"stood up" is found, "arose" would be just as good 
a translation. Let it be admitted, however, that the 
word is properly rendered " stand up " in certain pas- 
sages ; still, it is undeniable that it is used in other 
passages to denote the beginning of a process by w^hich 
a thing is done. Two examples will be sufficient. It 
is said (Luke i. 39), "And Mary arose [cinastasa, same 
word with a feminine termination] in those days, and 
went into the hill-country," etc. Did Mary stand up 
and go ? Does not anastasa here indicate the beginning 
of the movement by which she reached "the hill- 
country"? In Luke xv. 18 the prodigal son says, 



152 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

^' 1 will arise [anastas] and go to my father;'^ and in 
verse 20 it is said "And lie arose [_anastas] and came 
to his father.'^ Did he stand up and go to his father? 
Was not the anastas the commencement of the return- 
ing movement? He arose and returned to his father. 
Now, Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Is it not 
reasonable, then, to believe that when he says (Acts 
ix. 18) that Saul "arose [anastas~\ and w^as baptized,^^ 
he means by anastas the beginning of a process neces- 
sary to his baptism? He evidently arose that he 
might be immersed ; but no rising up, no anastas, was 
necessary if water was to be poured or sprinkled on 
him. His immersion implied the movement indicated 
by anastas, while pouring or sprinkling could imply 
no such movement. In verse 39 of the same chapter 
it is said, "And Peter arose [anastas^ and went with 
them ^^ — that is, to Joppa. He did not stand still and 
go, but he arose as the first thing to be done in getting 
to Joppa — -just as Saul arose as the first thing to be 
done in getting to a suitable place for immersion. But 
I shall let Saul, who afterward became Paul, settle this 
matter himself. In Rom. vi. 4, including himself 
with those to whom he wrote, he says : " We are 
[were] buried with him by baptism.'' If Saul was 
buried by baptism, he was immersed. There is no 
burial in pouring or sprinkling. 

6. It is argued that the question (Acts x. 47), ^'Can 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 153 

any man forbid water that these should not be baptized f^ 
intimates that water was to be brought. 

This objection to immersion is specially destitute of 
force. The question only means, Can any one forbid 
the baptism of these Gentiles, who have received the 
Holy Spirit as well as the Jew^s? Baptist ministers, 
in receiving candidates for baptism, often say to the 
church, "Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized?'^ Does this imply that the 
water is to be brought in a " bowl ^' or a " pitcher '' ? 
Evidently not. 

7. It is supposed that the jailer (Acts xvi. 30-34) 
could not have been immersed in prison. 

Baptists do not say that he was immersed in prison. 
The jailer brought out Paul and Silas from the prison 
before he said, " Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?'^ 
Then they " spoke to him the word of the Lord, and 
to all that were in his house.'^ It seems, then, that^ 
they were in his house (verse 32). In verse 34 it is 
said, "And when he had brought them into his house,^^ 
etc. Verse 33 contains an account of the baptism. 
They left the house when the baptism took place, and 
they went back into the house when the baptism was 
over. Did they leave the house that the jailer and 
his family might have water poured or sprinkled on 
them ? Was it necessary ? Certainly not, but it was 
necessary to the administration of apostolic baptism. 



154 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

8. Pedobaptists urge that the baptism of the Israelites 
unto I\Ioses in the cloud and in the sea is irreconcilable 
with the idea of immersion. 

In being baptized into or unto Christ we j^ublicly 
assume liini as our leader. The Israelites in being 
baptized unto Moses publicly assumed him as their 
leader. The resemblance of their passage through the 
sea, with the cloud above them, to Christian immer- 
sion no doubt suggested to Paul the language he em- 
ployed. There was no literal baptism, and there was 
no pouring or sprinkling. How often is Ps. Ixxvii. 
17 referred to to prove that the Israelites had water 
poured on them ! Unfortunately for this view of the 
matter, it is said, '^ The clouds poured out water.^^ It 
was a cloud that Paul refers to — the miraculous cloud, 
the symbol of the Divine Presence. This cloud had 
no more water in it than that on which the Saviour 
rode triumphantly to heaven. It will be observed 
that the Israelites were baptized in the cloud and in 
the sea. In literal baptism the water constitutes the 
envelopment. The person is baptized in water only. 
In the case of the Israelites it required the sea (which 
was as a wall on each side) and the cloud (which was 
above) to complete the envelopment. Who does not 
see that the word ^^ baptize '^ is used in connection 
with the passage of the Israelites through the sea be- 
cause it means '^ to immerse ^^ ? If it could be con- 



DISTINCTIVE PEINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 155 

ceived that the miraculous cloud poured forth water, 
ajid that the pouring constituted the baptism, what 
had the sea to do in the baptismal operation ? Ab- 
solutely nothing; but Paul says that "our fathers 
were . . . baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
the sea^^ (1 Cor. x. 2). 

9. It is contended that the phrase " divers washings ^^ 
in Heb, ix, 10 [in the original, " baptisms ^') indicates 
more baptisms than one. 

It is a significant fact that Dr. Macknight, a Pres- 
byterian translator, renders the phrase "divers immer- 
sions.'' The Mosaic law required unclean persons to 
"bathe themselves in water;'' it required unclean ves- 
sels to be " put into water ;" and it said, "All that 
abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the 
w^ater " (Num. xxxi. 23). It surely will be conceded 
that these regulations involved " divers immersions." 
There were "divers" occasions for immersing, and 
" divers " objects were immersed. Moreover, in the 
same chapter of Hebrews the verb rantizo ("to 
sprinkle") is used three times. If by "divers wash- 
ings" the inspired writer included sprinklings, why 
did he use a different word when, as everybody 
know^s, he intended to convey the idea of sprinkling ? 
Is there a man under the sun who can tell ? 

10. limner sion, it is offirmedj is indecent and dan" 
gcroxLs. 



156 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

What says Dr, Richard Watson^ in his Theological 
Institutes, a work so highly approved by his Method- 
ist brethren ? Here is his language : ^^ With all the 
arrangements of modern times, baptism by immer- 
sion is not a decent practice: there is n^t a female, 
perhaps, Avho submits to it who has not a great pre- 
vious struggle with her delicacy." Again : ^' Even if 
immersion had been the original mode of baptizing, 
w^e should in the absence of any command on the sub- 
ject, direct or implied, have thought the church at 
liberty to accommodate the manner of applying water 
to the body in the name of the Trinity, in which the 
essence of the rite consists, to different climates and 
manners ; but it is satisfactory to discover that all the 
attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice 
repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, 
and offensive to delicacy is destitute of all scriptural 
authority and of really primitive practice." * 

Immersion " not a decent practice " ! Yet the 
Methodist " Discipline " authorizes it ! Does it author- 
ize an indecent practice? It recognizes immersion as 
valid baptism, and its validity must arise from the 
appointment of Jesus Christ. It cannot be valid un- 
less he has appointed it. Will Methodists dare say 
that one of Christ's appointments "is not a decent 
practice"? Will they say that this "practice" is 
* Vol. ii., pp. 648, 660, New York edition. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 157 

"repulsive to the feelings ^^ and "offensive to deli- 
cacy"? Can it be "repulsive to the feelings'^ of 
Christ's friends to do what he has commanded ? No 
"female/' it seems, "submits to" immersion without 
" a great previous struggle w^ith her delicacy" ! Ah, 
indeed! Baptists who practise immersion know noth- 
ing of this "great struggle." The temptation to 
write something severe on this point is quite strong ; 
but I resist it, and only say that persons who see 
"indecency" or " indelicacy " in immersion are vul- 
gar-minded. The " indecency " and the " indelicacy '^ 
are in them, not in the ordinance of Christ. 

In the foregoing extract from Watson, where he 
refers to " the church " as "at liberty to accommodate 
the manner of applying w^ater to the body in the 
name of the Trinity," the discerning reader will 
detect i\\Q gci^m of Popery. Ah, that "liberty to ac- 
commodate"! How mischievous has been its opera- 
tion ! It led Calvin to say that, though immersion 
was the primitive practice, "the church did grant 
liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the 
rites somewhat, excepting the substance." It led 
Watson to say that "if immersion had been the 
original mode of baptizing" the church would be 
"at liberty to accommodate the manner of apply- 
ing" the water. In the last decade it led Dean 
Stanley to refer to the substitution of sprinkling in 

14 



158 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 

the place of immersion (admitted by him to have 
been the ancient baptism) as ^^the triumph of com- 
mon sense and convenience over the bondage of form 
and custom/' Alas! the exercise of this assumed 
'' liberty to accommodate '^ — that is, to deviate from 
the order appointed by Christ — resulted in the estab- 
lishment of the Romish hierarchy, and has led to the 
formation of every Pedobaptist church under heaven. 
This fact is intensely suggestive. 

I have now examined the most prominent objections 
of Pedobaptists to immersion. "Whatever else may be 
said of these objections, it cannot be said that they 
have weight. They are light as the thin air — lighter 
than vanity. They indicate the weakness of the cause 
they are intended to support. An examination of them 
must confirm Baptists in the belief of their distinctive 
principle which has now been considered — namely, 

that THE IMMERSION IN WATER OF A BELIEVER IN 
CHRIST IS ESSENTIAL, TO BAPTISM — SO ESSENTIAL 
THAT WITHOUT IT THERE IS NO BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER III. 

BAPTISTS HOLD THAT, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTUEAL, 
ORDER, PERSONS MUST COME FIRST TO CHRIST AND 
THEN TO THE CHURCH AND ITS ORDINANCES. 

TN the foregoing pages we have seen who are sub- 
■^ jects of baptism and what is the baptismal act. 
Tlie act must not be performed until there are subjects 
to receive it, and the subjects must first have come to 
Christ. This Baptist principle is not always made so 
distinctly prominent as the two principles already dis- 
cussed ; and probably the reason is that it is supposed 
to be involved in them. It is, however, entitled to 
separate consideration, though this chapter need not 
be so long as either of the preceding ones. 

Baptists are distinguished from all other religious 
denominations by their belief that no one is eligible 
to a church relation who has not first been brouo;ht 
into a personal, spiritual relation to Christ by faith in 
his name. In this belief we see such a divergence of 
views between Baptists and others as makes compro- 
mise and harmony impossible. The question is broad 
and deep, embracing the New-Testament doctrine of 

159 



160 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

a spiritual church. If Pedobaptists are right in their 
conception of a church, Baptists are wrong ; if Bap- 
tists are right, Pedobaptists are wrong. The antago- 
nism between them is not incidental or accidental, but 
essential and inevitable. It may be said — it need not 
be said in any offensive sense — that the antagonism 
involves a war of extermination. That is to say, if 
the Pedobaptist view of a church and its ordinances 
should be so carried into effect as to attain universal 
prevalence, the Baptist view would be banished from 
the earth ; if the Baptist view of a church and its 
ordinances should universally prevail, the Pedobaptist 
view must become obsolete. The two views are de- 
structive of each other. But it is time to notice the 
scriptural order announced at the head of this 

chapter. 

SECTION I. 

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration reverses this order. 

Incredible as it may appear, there are multitudes 
who believe in baptismal regeneration. Possibly, 
Roman Catholics would prefer saying that they be- 
lieve in baptismal salvation. They regard baptism 
as essential to the salvation of infants. They are 
baptized that they may be introduced into the church, 
out of which it is believed that there is no salvation. 
The doctrine of Romanists is that " infants receive in 
baptism spiritual grace /^ which, of coui^se, means 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 161 

tliat tliey are made the subjects of grace and salvation. 
This recei)tion of "spiritual grace ^^ is independent of 
personal faith in Christ, for unconscious infants cannot 
exercise faith. Tliis is virtually admitted in the pro- 
vision of sponsors in the administration of baptism to 
infants. Godfathers and godmothers, by a sort of 
pious fiction, personate the infants and promise for 
them ; or rather the infants themselves are represented, 
in utter disregard of truth and of fact, as promising 
to renounce the devil and all his works. All this is 
an inversion of the scriptural order, wliich requires a 
personal coming to Christ, and through him to the 
church and its ordinances. The Romisli plan is for 
persons, whether infants or adults, to be brought, by 
means of baptismal salvation, into the church, and 
thus to Christ. 

The Lutheran view of baptism does not differ ma- 
terially from the Romish dogma. In the Augsburg 
Confession, drawn up by Melanchthon in 1530, and 
recognized as the " Creed of the German Reformers,'^ 
the " grace of God ^^ is said to be " offered through 
baptism.^' The Baptists — styled "Anabaptists'^ — are 
condemned because they affirm that " children are saved 
without baptism.^' The doctrine that baptism is "ne- 
cessary and effectual to salvation " — Dr. Hodge being 
judge — has been "softened down" by Lutheran theo^ 
logians ; so that they now say that " baptism is ordi- 

14* 



162 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

narily necessary/^ Dr. Krauth, in his learned volume 
The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (p. 431), 
expresses himself thus: ^^On God^s part it [baptism] 
is not so necessary that he may not, in an extraordinary 
case, reach, in an extraordinary way, what baptism is 
his ordinary way of accomplishing. Food is ordi- 
narily necessary to human life ; so that the father who 
voluntarily withholds food from his child is at heart 
its murderer. Yet food is not so absolutely necessary 
to human life that God may not sustain life without 
it.^^ 

The ^^ softening down/^ according to this extract, is 
not very great. The position assumed is that salvation 
without baptism is '' an extraordinary case^' — so much 
so as to be miraculous, for the illustration given teaches 
that God may sustain human life without food ; which, 
of course, would be nothing less than a miracle. It 
cannot be denied, then, that Lutherans believe that 
baptism is ordinarily necessary to salvation, and that 
salvation without it is exceptional and abnormal. It 
follows, according to this view, that infants are intro- 
duced into the ^^ church ^^ and put into a saved state 
without first coming to Christ. 

The Protestant Episcopal Church holds the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration. This is evident, from what 
the minister, after baptizing an infant, is required to 
say — namely, '' We yield thee hearty thanks, most 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 163 

merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate 
this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine 
own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy 
holy church." 

It will be observed that it is taken for granted that 
regeneration has taken place, and that it has been ef- 
fected by the Holy Spirit : " It hath pleased thee to 
regenerate/' The same doctrine of baptismal regen- 
eration is recognized in the Catechism, in w^hich the 
child (before "confirmation ") gives his or her name. 
Then the question is asked, '' Who gave you this 
name?'' The answer is, " My sponsors in baptism; 
wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of 
God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven/' 
It would he difficult to conceive how baptism can do 
more than is here attributed to it. All the possibilities 
of present and eternal salvation are involved in the 
expressions "a member of Christ," "the child of 
God," and "an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." 

That it may be seen that I do no injustice to the 
teachings of the "Book of Common Prayer" I quote 
from a prominent Episcopal minister. Dr. Richard 
Newton, rector of the church of the Epiphany in 
Philadelphia. In a letter published in the Life of 
Bishop Cummins (p. 354) Dr. Newton says: "And 
after all that can be said of the different theories that 
may be forced on the words ^regenerate,' etc., in our 



164 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

service for infant baptism, the natural, legitimate con- 
struction to put upon it — the construction which any 
honest jury of twelve men with no theory to maintain 
on the subject would put upon it — is that it does teach 
the horrible dogma that spiritual regeneration is in- 
separably connected with the use of baptism/^ 

This testimony is very strong, but its truth is equal 
to its strength. It furnishes cause for deep regret that 
millions among Romanists, Lutherans, and Episco- 
palians ascribe to baptism a saving efficacy, and hold 
what Dr. New^ton terms a " horrible dogma/^ This 
" dogma ^^ is at war with the distinctive principle of 
Baptists that persons must come first to Christ, and 
tlien to the church and its ordinances. The scriptural 
order is reversed by all the advocates of baptismal re- 
generation. 

SECTION 11. 

The practice of infant baptism reverses this order. 
The evils of infant baptism are not confined to the 
theory of baptismal regeneration. They develop them- 
selves most appallingly in connection with this theory; 
but they are to be seen wherever and for whatever pur- 
pose infant baptism is practised. It is itself a great 
evil, and great evils result from it. The following 
language of the late godly Dr. J. Newton Brown, 
though strong, is not too strong : '^ Infant baptism is 
an error from beginning to end ; corrupt in theory and 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 165 

corrupting in practice; born in superstition, cradled 
in fear, nursed in ignorance, supported by fraud, and 
spj^ead by force; doomed to die in the light of histor- 
ical investigation, and its very memory to be loathed 
in all future ages by a disabused church. In the realms 
of despotism it has shed the blood of martyrs in tor- 
rents; that blood cries against it to heaven, and a 
long-suifering God will yet be the terrible avenger/^ * 

In a note Dr. Brown says : " In no boastful spirit, 
but in the spirit of a martyr before God — stung by the 
solemn conviction of duty after thirty-five years of earn- 
est and impartial investigation on this subject to speak 
out Hhe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth ' — we nail these theses to the door of every 
Pedobaptist church in Christendom and challenge all 
the Christian scholarship of the age not to ignore, 
evade, or deny them, but to face the inevitable trial, 
summon the witnesses, sift the evidence, and, if it can, 
disprove all or any one of them. And may God help 
the right !'' 

While Presbyterians and Methodists generally dis- 
avow all sympathy with the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration, they are decided in their espousal and 
advocacy of infant baptism. It is strange that the 
spirituality of the Christian Dispensation does not lead 
them to give up the practice. It is pre-eminently a 
* Essay prefixed to Memorials of Baptist Martyrs^ p. 13. 



166 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

spiritual economy. How Jesus exalts spiritual relations 
above those which are natural, we clearly see in Mark 
iii. 35 : "For whosoever shall do the will of God, the 
same is my brother, and my sister, and mother/^ Paul 
said, '' We know no man after the flesh ;'^ but infant 
baptism is a recognition of ihe relations of the flesh. 
Infants, it is claimed, are proper subjects of baptism 
because they are descended from believing parents. 
This view is earnestly defended by Presbyterians, who 
insist that at least one of the parents of the infant to 
be baptized must be a believer. But the relation be- 
tween parents and baptized infants is natural^ whereas 
all the relations M'hich the gospel recognizes are 
spiritual. Parents must first believe in Christ, in order 
to be brought into a spiritual relation with him ; but 
their faith does not create a spiritual relation to their 
children. There can be no such relation until the 
children believe. All believers are spiritually related 
to one another, and the reason is that they are all in 
spiritual union with Christ. The relation to him is 
supreme, and out of it spring all subordinate spiritual 
relations. But Pedobaptists, in the practice of infant 
baptism, proceed on the supposition that the existence 
of a natural relation between them and their cliildren 
entitles the latter to a Christian ordinance. The sup- 
position is entirely gratuitous, and in positive conflict 
with the spirituality of the Christian economy. There 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 167 

is between parents and children no relation, whether 
natural or spiritual, that gives children the right to 
church-membership. This is plain as to the natural 
relation. It is equally so as to the spiritual relation, 
in view of the fact that it is union with Christ by 
faith which is a prerequisite to baptism and church- 
membership. Hence, believing children possess this 
prerequisite though their parents are dead. It is their 
relation to Christ that decides the matter. The refer- 
ence here is, of course, to children who have reached 
accountable years. As to unconscious infants, it is one 
of the strangest of strange things that they can be 
thought eligible to baptism and church-membership. 
This view is held, and can be held, by those only who 
reverse one of the distinctive principles of Baptists, 
claimed by them to be a distinctive principle of the 
New Testament — namely. That persons must come first 
to Christ, and then to the church and its ordinances. 
Christ's positive and gracious command is, ^^Come 
unto me.'^ He says, ^^He that cometh to me shall 
never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall 
never thirst.^^ He complains of the Jews : "And ye 
will not come to me, that ye might have life.^^ It is 
manifest from these forms of expression that " coming 
to Christ'' is a matter of supreme importance. It has 
an essential connection with the salvation of the soul. 
Coming to Christ is believing on him, and faith creates 



168 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

spiritual union with him: "Being justified by faith, 
we have peace with God through our Lord eTesus 
Christ/^ The gospel permits nothing to come between 
Christ and sinners. Their first business is to receive 
him. They do this by an act of personal faith. He 
is a personal Saviour, and the act of faith is a personal 
act. There is no act more intensely personal — not 
even the act of dying. There is no such thing as 
believing in Christ by proxy, but every one must be- 
lieve for himself, even as every one must die for him- 
self. Now, it is those only who have come to Christ 
by believing on him that have anything to do with 
the church and its ordinances. A New-Testament 
church is a spiritual brotherhood the members of 
which are the subjects of spiritual life, and the ordi- 
nances of the gospel are designed for spiritual persons. 
The opposite view is fraught Avith evil, for it changes 
the order which Christ has established. It permits 
persons to come to the church and its ordinances before 
they come to Christ. Baptists regard this as disastrous 
heresy, and utter their earnest protest against it. They 
have stood alone in the centuries past, and they stand 
alone now, in advocacy of the great principle, CHRIST 

FIRST, THEN THE CHURCH AND ITS ORDINANCES. 



CHAPTER IV. 

BAPTISTS BELIEVE THAT A SCRIPTURAL CHURCH IS 
A LOCAL COXGREGATIO;sr OF BAPTIZED BELIEVERS 
INDEPENDENT, UNDER CHRIST, OF THE STATE AND 
OF EVERY OTHER CHURCH, HAVING IN ITSELF 
AUTHORITY TO DO WHEATEVER A CHURCH CAN 
OF RIGHT DO. 

TT requires but little reflection to see that the prin- 
ciple here announced is peculiar to Baptists. No 
other religious denomination holds it — certainly not 
in its entirety. The important question, however, is 
whether the New Testament sustains this principle ; 
for if it does not, the principle possesses no value. It 
will be observed that my reference is to the New Tes- 
tament, for it would be absurd to go to the Old Testa- 
ment to ascertain the nature of a Christian Church. 
In the matter of church-building, as well as in other 
things, Jesus said to the apostles, *' Teaching them 
[the disciples] to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you.'' 

15 169 



170 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

SECTION L 
A scriptural church a local congregation of baptized 

believers. 

The Greek term eJcMesia — translated " church ^' more 
than a hundred times in the New Testament (rendered 
^^ assembly ^^ three times) — is compounded of two words 
literally meaning " to call out oV I shall not attempt 
to show how this meaning received a practical illustra- 
tion when assemblies were called out among the Greeks. 
My present purpose is answered by the statement that 
in apostolic times a church was composed of persons 
who had been called out from the world, even as 
Christ chose his apostles ^^ out of the world/' They 
had been called from the bondage of sin into the 
liberty of the gospel ; from spiritual darkness into 
the light of salvation ; from the dominion of unbe- 
lief into the realm of faith ; from an heirship of 
wrath to an heirship of glory. This was true of 
the members of the first churches. Brought by the 
Holy Spirit into a new relation to God through 
Christ, they were prepared for church-relations and 
church-membership. This preparation was moral, 
consisting of ^^ repentance toward God and faith 
toward our Lord Jesus Christ." But repentance and 
faith are exercises of the mind, and are consequently 
invisible. They are private transactions between God 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 171 

and the soul. The world knows not of them. Churches, 
however, are visible oro^anizations. This beincr the 
case, there must be some visible ceremonial qualifica- 
tion for membership. This qualification is baptism. 
Th^re can, according to the Scriptures, be no visible 
church without baptism. An observance of this or- 
dinance is the believer's first public act of obedience 
to Christ. Regeneration, repentance, and faith are 
private matters that take place in the unseen depths 
of the heart. They involve internal piety, but of 
this piety there must be an external manifestation. 
This manifestation is made in baptism. This is "the 
good profession '^ made by a most significant symbolic 
act. The penitent, regenerate believer is baptized 
"into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit.'^ There is a visible, symbolic ex- 
pression of a new relation to the three Persons of the 
Godhead — a relation really entered into in repentance, 
faith, and regeneration. 

That baptized believers are the only persons eligible 
to church-membership is clear from the whole ten- 
or of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Apostolic 
Epistles. Everywhere it is seen that baptism preceded 
church-relations; nor is there an intimation that it 
was possible for an unbaptized person to be a church- 
member. On this point, however, there is no contro- 
versy between Baptists and Pedobaptists, for both 



172 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

believe in tlie priority of baptism to church-member- 
ship. The difference between them is on the question, 
What is baptism ? The Baptist answer to this ques- 
tion has been given in the preceding part of this vol- 
ume. According to that answer^ baptism is the imiiier- 
sion in water of a believer in Jesus Christ. If, then, a 
church is a congregation of baptized believers, it is a 
congregation of immersed believers. An unimmersed 
congregation, therefore, even if a congregation of be- 
lievers, is not a New-Testament church. Baptists do 
not deny that there are pious men and women in Pedo- 
baptist churches, so called, but they do deny that these 
churches are formed according to the New-Testament 
model. They are without baptism, and, to use the 
words of a very distinguished Pedobaptist, Dr. E. D. 
Griffin, '^ where tliere is no baptism, there are no vis- 
ible churches.^^ * Even if Pedobaptists practised im- 
mersion, and immersion only, the introduction of the 
infant element into their churches would vitiate their 
claim to recognition as New-Testament churches. The 
infant element must predominate over the adult ele- 
ment, in obedience to the law of increase in popula- 
tion ; which law renders children more numerous than 
parents. Surely, as Pedobaptists practise an uncom- 

* His celebrated Letter on Communion^ reviewed by Dr. Eipley, 
may be seen in the Boston edition of J. G. Fuller On Communion, 
also in the American Baptist Magazine for September, 1829. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 173 

manded ceremony instead of baptism — on unscriptural 
subjects instead of on believers — their churches can 
lay no claim to conformity to the New-Testament 
standard of church organization. They are not con- 
gregations of baptized believers. There can be no 
ecclesiastic fellowship between them and Baptists, for 
the latter hold most tenaciously that a scriptural 
church is a local congregation of baptized believers. 
That a church is a local cono;re2:ation needs no elabo- 
rate proof. The fact is sufficiently indicated by the 
use of the word in both its singular and its plural 
form. We read of "the church at Jerusalem/^ *^ the 
church of God which is at Corinth/^ "the church of 
the Thessalonians/^ "the church of Ephesus/' "the 
church in Smyrna/^ etc. Nor is it to be supposed 
that it required a large number of persons to consti- 
tute a church. Paul refers to Aquila and Priscilla 
and " the church that is in their house/^ to Nymphas 
and "the church which is in his house ;'^ while in 
his letter to Philemon he says, "to the church in 
thy house.^^ A congregation of saints organized ac- 
cording to the New Testament, whether that congre- 
gation is large or small, is a church. 

The inspired writers, too, use the term "churches'^ 
in the plural ; and, as if for ever to preclude the idea 
of a church commensurate with a province, a kingdom, 

or an empire, they say " the churches of Galatia," "the 
15 * 



174 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

churches of Macedonia/^ " the churches of Asia," " tlie 
churches of Judea." In reference to an organization 
in a city or town or house, the singular "church" is 
used ; but when regions of country are mentioned, we 
have "churches," in the plural. Wherever Christian- 
ity prevailed in apostolic times, there was a plurality 
of churches. 

SECTION 11. 

The Lord's Supper observed by local churches. 
The churches composed, as they are, of Christ^s 
baptized disciples meet for the worship of tlieir Lord. 
" Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together " 
is the language addressed to Christians in apostolic 
times. Among the duties and the privileges of a con- 
gregation of baptized believers in Christ is included a 
commemoration of his death at his Table. Every local 
church is required to observe this ordinance. Its ob- 
ligation to do so is inseparable from its independence; 
and the doctrine of church independence will be devel- 
oped in future sections of this chapter. The ordinances 
of the gospel are placed by Christ in the custody of 
his churches. They dare not change them in any 
respect; to change them would be disloyalty to their 
Lord. They have no legislative power; they are 
simply executive democracies required to carry into 
effect the will of their Head. Who but his churches 
can be expected to preserve the integrity and the j)ur- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 175 

ity of the ordinances of the Lord Jesus? These ordi- 
nances are to be kept as they were delivered to the 
churches and received by them. This is indispensable 
to the maintenance of gospel order. 

What Paul writes to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xi. 20- 
34) clearly indicates the necessity of coming together 
" to eat the Lord's Supper.'^ True, he refers to certain 
irregularities, which he severally condemns ; but w^ien 
he asks, " Despise ye the church of God ?'^ he refers 
to its members, not in their individual, but in their 
collective, capacity — the congregation of God. So, in 
verses 33, 34, the words '^ when ye come together to 
eat, tarry one for another,'^ and ^^ that ye come not to- 
gether unto condemnation," show beyond doubt that 
the assembling of the church was requisite to the cele- 
bration of the Lord^s Supper. It is a church ordinance, 
and therefore Baptists oppose any and every attempt to 
administer it privately to individuals without church 
sanction. 

What was true of the Corinthian church as to the 
"coming together" of its members to commemorate 
the death of Christ was doubtless true of all other 
churches of that period. It w^ould be absurd to sup- 
pose that there was a capricious diversity in the customs 
of the churches. We may therefore assume that there 
was uniformity. 

With regard to the Lord's Supper there are different 



176 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

views held by different religious denominations. Romaa 
Catholics believe in what they call Transubstantiation 
— that is, that by the consecration of the priest the 
bread and the wine are changed into the real body and 
the real blood of Christ. This doctrine defies all rea- 
sonable credence, and can be accepted only by a vora- 
cious credulity. It requires a renunciation of common 
sense to believe that when Jesus took bread into his 
hands, that bread became his body ; so that he held 
his body in his hands! The statement of such a dog- 
ma is its sufficient exposure. 

Lutherans, while they dissent from the Romish viev/, 
advocate what they call Consubstantiation. By this 
they mean that in the Lord's Supper the body and the 
blood of Christ are really present in the bread and the 
wine. While this view differs from the Romish, it is 
equally mysterious and scarcely less incredible; for it 
demands the impossible belief that the body of Christ 
is not only present in many places on earth at the same 
time, but that it is also in heaven. Surely the body of 
Christ is not omnipresent. 

Episcopalians and Methodists, as well as Roman- 
ists and Lutherans, receive kneeling the bread and 
the wine in the Lord's Supper. The posture is an 
unnatural one, and the custom of kneeling no doubt 
has an historical connection with Transubstantiation — 
that is to say, when the dogma was accepted as true, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 177 

the bread and the wine were considered suitable ob- 
jects of adoration. Hence the kneeling attitude was 
assumed by Romanists, transmitted by them to Epis- 
copalians, and from them inherited by Methodists. It 
is strange, in view of the idolatrous origin of the cus- 
tom of kneeling, that it is continued by those who 
abjure idolatry. This by the way. 

There is one thing in the service of Episcopalians 
and Methodists which must ever impress Baptists as 
very strange : The minister, in delivering the bread to 
each person, says, ^' The body of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body 
and soul unto everlasting life/^ In giving the cup 
he says, " The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 
was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto 
everlasting life." * This may not be, but it seems to 
be, a prayer offered to the body and the blood of 
Christ, w^iich are invoked to preserve unto everlast- 
ing life the body and the soul of the person addressed. 
Prayer to Christ is eminently proper, for it is justified 
by the example of the dying Stephen ; but prayer to 
tlie body and the blood of Christ is utterly inde- 
fensible. 

Presbyterians are nearer right in their views of the 
Lord's Supper than are the denominations to which I 

■^ The Methodist " Discipline " transposes the terms " body " and 
" soul." 



178 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

have referred. They do not kneel and they make 
prominent the commemorative feature of the ordi- 
nance. True, they call it a ^^ sealing ordinance ;^^ and 
these words Baptists vainly try to understand. What 
is sealed ? '^ The covenant of grace/^ they say. How 
is this ? They say also that '' baptism seals '^ it. Has 
it two seals? Among men covenants are invalid 
without seals. Is the covenant of grace invalid for 
purposes of salvation unless the seals of baptism and 
the Lord's Supper are appended to it? Presbyterians 
w^ill hardly answer in the affirmative. The truth is 
the New Testament never refers to baptism and the 
Lord's Supper as "sealing ordinances/^ and for the 
best reason: It teaches that believers are "sealed by 
the Holy Spirit unto the dayof rederaption.^^ If the 
Holy Spirit seals, there is security ; and there is some- 
thing wrong in the theology which makes baptism and 
the Lord's Supper "sealing ordinances.'^ 

Baptists hold that, as the Lord's Supper is a church- 
ordinance, the supreme prerequisite to it is church- 
membership. Baptism, it is true, is often referred to 
as a prerequisite, and so it is, but only in the sense 
that it is a prerequisite to church-membership. The 
members of every local church can claim it as a right 
to come to the Lord's Table in that church, but in no 
other. They may, through fraternal courtesy, be ad- 
mitted to the Lord's Supper in sister-churches, but to 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 179 

demand admittance as a right would be an assault on 
church independence. This is a matter so plain that 
it is needless to dwell on it. It sometimes creates a 
smile when it is said that Baptists are more liberal in 
their views and practice in regard to the Lord's Sup- 
per than are any other people; but it is true. It is 
true in the sense that they believe that all whom they 
baptize and receive into church-membership are en- 
titled to seats at the Lord's Table ; and it is true in 
the sense that they welcome to that Table all whom 
they baptize. They dare not sever from each other 
the two ordinances of the gospel. Of what other de- 
nomination can this be said ? I refer to the denom- 
inations of Protestant Christendom. Among Epis- 
copalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists 
baptism and the Lord's Supper are put asunder — 
that is to say, this is true of ^^ baptized children'^ 
as distinguished from " communicants." With Epis- 
copalians and Lutherans these ^^ baptized children," 
so called, are kept from the Lord's Table until they 
receive the rite of ^^ Confirmation." It is not possible 
to give a good reason for this practice ; for if through 
'' sponsors " they are entitled to baptism, they are also 
entitled to the Lord's Supper. Presbyterians require 
in the " baptized children " evidence of personal piety 
before they are allowed to come to the Lord's Table, 
and Methodists, to say the least, insist that there shall 



180 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

be ^^ a desire to flee from the wrath to come.'' The 
argument against inviting infants is that infants cannot 
" discern the body and blood of the Lord Jesus." This 
is doubtless true ; but it is equally true that they cannot 
discern the spiritual significance of baptism. If the 
inability to ^Miscern" is a bar to the Lord's Table, it 
should also be a bar to the Lord's baptism. There can 
be no good reason for severing the ordinances of the 
gospel. Those who are entitled to baptism are entitled 
to the Lord's Supper. There is an interference with 
scriptural order whenever the two ordinances are dis- 
joined. The interference cannot be justified. Baptists, 
therefore, say that the Lord's Supper is not scriptural ly 
observed among Pedobaptists. They have neither 
scriptural baptism nor scriptural church-membership, 
and there cannot be a scriptural administration of the 
Lord's Supper. In addition to this, they withhold from 
a large number — perhaps a majority — of those who, in 
their judgment, are baptized the Lord's Supper. This 
is a great inconsistency. It must be said, however, that 
if the ordinances were not sundered — that is, if all bap- 
tized by Pedobaptists were permitted to come to the 
Lord's Supper — the service would be vitiated by the 
presence of a majority composed of unbelievers and 
of those incapable of believing. In view of such con- 
siderations as these, it will readily be seen why Bap- 
tists l^elieve that Pedobaptists fail to observe the Lord's 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 181 

Supper according to the New Testament, even as they 
fail to administer New-Testament baptism. 

On the other hand, it is a distinctive Baptist prin- 
ciple that a scriptural church is a congregation of 
baptized believers in Christ, whose duty and privilege 
it is '' to eat the Lord's Supper/^ All the members 
of such a church are required to commemorate their 
Lord's death. They are united to him by faith in his 
name, and through him, by spiritual ties, to one an- 
other, while their baptism has incorporated them into 
one body, and their partaking of ^' one bread " (1 Cor. 
X. 17) is a symbol of their unity. 

Baptists detach from the Lord's Supper every idea 
of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, ritual effica- 
cy, sealing virtue, etc., and consider it a memorial of 
Christ's death. Its commemorative office is that which 
constitutes its supreme distinction. Everything else 
connected with it is secondary and incidental. ^* This 
do in remembrance of me," said Jesus in instituting 
the ordinance on the night of the betrayal. In the 
eating of the broken bread he requires that his cruci- 
fied body be remembered ; in the drinking of the cup 
he enjoins a remembrance of his blood. That the fac- 
ulty of memory is specially exercised concerning the 
death of Christ in the sacred Supper is manifest from 
1 Cor. xi. 26 : *^ For as often as ye eat this bread, and 
drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he 

16 



182 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

come." We do not show his birth or baptism or bur- 
ial or resurrection or ascension, but his death. If ever 
the tragedy of Calvary should engross the thoughts of 
the Christian to the exclusion of every other subject, 
it is when he sits at the Table of the Lord. Then mem- 
ory must reproduce the scenes of the crucifixion and 
so hold them up to the mind that Christ is "evidently 
set forth crucified." Then in the eating of the bread 
and the drinking of the cup the body and the blood 
of the Lord are '^spiritually discerned," and the ordi- 
nance, by the presence of the Holy Spirit, becomes a 
rich blessing to the soul. It becomes the means of 
strengthening faith in Christ and of increasing love to 
him; while memory goes back to his death, and hope 
looks to his second coming, when his personal presence 
will supersede the necessity of any symbol to promote 
a remembrance of him. 

SECTION III. 
Definition of church independence. 

There are three prominent forms of church-govern- 
ment, indicated by the terms Episcopacy, Presbyterian- 
ism, and Independency. 

Episcopacy recognizes the right of bishops to preside 
over districts of country, and one of its fundamental 
doctrines is that a bishop is officially superior to an el- 
der. Of course, in that church, a modern bishop has 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 183 

under his charge the "inferior clergy ^^ as well as "the 
laity ;^' for it is insisted that the "ordaining power ^^ 
and the "right to rule" belong to the episcopal office. 
In apostolic times "bishop " and "pastor^^ were terms of 
equivalent import. The elders of the church of Ephe- 
sus are styled (Acts xx. 28) " overseers '^ — in the orig- 
nal, episcopoi, the word generally translated "bishop/^ 
if, indeed, " bishop ^' may be called a translation. It 
is so evident frona the Scriptures that bishops and el- 
ders are identical that it is the greatest folly to call it 
in question. This, however, is not the place to enlarge 
on the topic. 

Presbyterianism recognizes two classes of elders — 
preaching elders and ruling elders. The pastor and 
the rulins: elders of a cono-reo-ation constitute what is 
culled the "Session of the church.^^ The "Session" 
transacts the business of the church, receives, dismisses, 
and excludes members. From the decision of a Ses- 
sion there is an appeal to Presbytery, which is composed 
of preaching and ruling elders. From the action of a 
Presbytery there lies an appeal to Synod, and from the 
adjudications of Synod there is an appeal to the Gen- 
eral Assembly, whose decrees are final and irresistible. 
These Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies 
are often termed "church courts," "judicatories of the 
church." 

The friends of Presbyterianism, no doubt, deem their 



184 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

form of government most expedient and satisfactory ; 
but to prove it scriptural must be as difficult as to show 
that baptism has been substituted for circumcision. 
Where is it intimated in the Scriptures that there is an 
appeal from the lower to the higher '^ church courts " ? 
While Presbyterians, therefore, talk and write about 
the expediency of their form of government, they ought 
to say nothing of its seripturalness. It is unquestion- 
ably a better government than the Episcopal, but it is 
not the government established by Jesus Christ. It is 
easily seen that Episcopacy and Presbyterianism imply 
that many local congregations enter representatively 
into the composition of what is called ^Hhe church." 
We, therefore, often hear of the "Episcopal Church 
of the United States of America,'^ the " Presbyterian 
Church of the United States." The local religious 
communities in all parts of the nation w^here Episco- 
pacy prevails are considered as constituting the " Epis- 
copal Church." So of Presbyterianism and Methodism. 
.77i6 Baptist Church of the United States is a form of 
expression which ought never to be used — which can 
never be used with propriety. There are more than 
twenty thousand Baptist churches in the United States, 
but they do not constitute one great Baptist Church 
of the United States. They differ materially and fun- 
damentally from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Meth- 
odist churches. They are all independent of the state. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 185 

This, however, is true of all religious denominations 
in this country; for the genius of our republic does 
not tolerate " Union between Church and State/^ But 
it deserves special notice that Baptists, with their views 
of the spirituality of New-Testament churches, could 
not, under any form of government, enter into an al- 
liance with the state. Episcopacy is established by law 
in England, Presbyterianism in Scotland, Lutheranisni 
in Germany and Sweden and Denmark. When Jesus 
stood before Pilate, he said, ^' My kingdom is not of 
this world/^ The view which Baptists have of these 
words is entirely hostile to the doctrine of a state- 
church. Their appreciation of ^^soul-liberty ^^ is so 
great that they can allow no interference with it. They 
are the friends of civil government, and believe any 
form of government better than anarchy. They pray 
for civil rulers, w^hether they be presidents or kings, 
but deny the right of the civil power to intrude into 
the spiritual realm of conscience. Their blood, often 
shed by their persecutors, has often testified to the 
sincerity of their belief. Their views find expres- 
sion in the stanza : 

" Let Caesar's dues be ever paid 
To Caesar and his throne ; 
But consciences and souls were made 
For God, the Lord, alone." 

Churches formed according to the New-Testament 

16* 



186 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

model are not only independent of the state, but in 
matters pertaining to government they are independ- 
ent of one another. They are interdependent only in 
the sense involved in mutual fellowship; and their 
mutual influence is not to be lightly esteemed, for it 
answers valuable purposes. But it must not be for- 
gotten that every local congregation of baptized believ- 
ers united in church worship and work is as complete 
a church as ever existed, and is perfectly competent to 
do whatever a church can of right do. It is as com- 
plete as if it were the only church in the world. 

It follows from the doctrine of church independ- 
ence that no church is at liberty to interfere with the 
internal affairs of another. Every Baptist church is 
an independent and a pure democracy. The idea of 
independence should be earnestly cherished, while that 
of consolidation should be as earnestly deprecated. 
Agreeably to the view now presented, we read in tlie 
New Testament of ^' the churclies of Judea," " the 
churches of Galatia,'^ "the churches of Macedonia,^^ 
but we never read of the church of Judea and of other 
provinces. There is not the remotest reference to a 
church commensurate with a province, with a kingdom, 
or with an empire. This view of cliurch extension 
and consolidation was pos^-apostolic— manifestly so. 

There are no people who recognize more fully than 
do Baptists the fact that the phrase "kingdom of 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 187 

Christ ^^ implies that he is King, Monarch, Autocrat. 
In ordaining the laws of his kingdom he did not allow 
the impertinent interference of men. There is no hu- 
man legislation in the kingdom of Christ. Churches 
organized according to the New Testament are required 
to execute the laws of Christ. To do this they must 
first decide what those laws are. It may be said, there- 
fore, that the churches of Christ are invested with ju- 
dicial and executive power, but they have no legislative 
power. Ecclesiastical legislation — such as is permitted 
in many Pedobaptist organizations — is abhorrent to the 
spirit of the gospel. Churches are executive democra- 
cies organized to carry out the sovereign w^ill of their 
Lord and King. 

The Baptist view of this matter is forcibly expressed 
in the language of the late J. M. Peck, D. D. Refer- 
ring to Baptists, he says : 

"Their theory of church government embraces two 
great and apparently opposite principles. 

" Fii'st. That the kingdom of Christ, in its visible form 
on earth, is a pure monarchy, Christ is King and Law- 
giver. He needs not the aid of man, nor will he endure 
human legislation in any form. He has not merely 
given a few vague and general rules, and left his peo- 
ple to work out all the discordant plans of govern- 
ment that prevail at this moment in Christendom.. 
Both by precept and in the inspired records of the 



188 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

primitive churches there are examples for every class 
of cases that necessity ever requires. The legislation 
in his kingdom is all divine. 

^^ Secondly, His kingdom, in its organized state of 
small communities, each managing its own affairs in 
its own vicinage, is a pure democracy. The people 
— THE WHOLE PEOPLE — in each community choose 
their own officers, receive and expel members, conduct 
all business as a body politic, decide on all questions 
of discipline, and observe all the institutions of Christ. 
Were they to institute a representative or any other 
form of government, they would depart from the 
law-book and soon be involved in as many difficul- 
ties as their neighbors.'^* 

In accordance with these principles, the govern- 
mental power of churches is, under Christ, with the 
members, including pastors and deacons. These offi- 
cers, however, can do nothing without the concurrence 
of the membership. It results of necessity from church 
independence that a majority must rule, that the power 
of a church cannot be transferred or alienated, and that 
church action is final. The power of a church cannot 
be delegated. There may be messengers of a church, 
but not delegates. No church can empower any man 
or any body of men to do anything which will impair 
its independency. 

* Christian Repository (1853), vol. ii., pp. 47, 48, 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 189 

These are highly-important principles ; and, while 
the existence of the independent form of church gov- 
ernment depends on their recognition and application, 
it is an inquiry of vital moment, Does the New Testa- 
ment recognize these principles ? For if it does not, 
w^hatever may be said in commendation of them they 
possess no binding force. I refer to the New Testa- 
ment, because it w^ould be unjustifiable to go to the Old 
to ascertain the form of government established for 
Christian churches. Jesus Christ, in instructing the 
apostles how to train the baptized disciples, says, 
^^ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you ^^ (Matt, xxviii. 20). He does 
not say "all things that Moses commanded,^^ but "all 
things whatsoever I have commanded.^^ The apostles 
enjoyed his teaching during his ministry, and the 
"forty days^^ between his resurrection and his ascen- 
sion he employed in speaking to them of "the things 
pertaining to the kingdom of God^^ (Acts i. 3). It 
may be said that Paul was not with Christ during his 
ministry, and that he did not enjoy the advantage of 
the " forty days^ ^^ instruction. This is true ; but his 
deficiencies, as compared with those of the other apos- 
tles, were evidently supplied by direct revelations from 
heaven. It will be seen, therefore, that the apostles 
themselves had no discretionary power. They were to 
teach the observance of all things their Lord and Mas- 



190 DISTIJSICTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

ter had ^^ commanded ^^ — no more, no less. Whatever 
they taught under the influence of inspiration must 
have accorded with the teachings of Christ. What- 
ever they did as inspired men may be considered as 

done by him. 

SECTION IV. 

The churches of the New Testament received, excluded^ and 

restored members. 

In proof and in illustration of this proposition the 
following facts are submitted. 

In Rom. xiv. 1 it is written: ^^Him that is weak 
in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputa- 
tions." What is the meaning of the first clause of 
this verse? Its import is obviously this: Receive 
into your fellow^ship, and treat as a Christian, the man 
who is weak in faith. The paraphrase of Mr. Barnes 
is, "Admit to your society or fellowship, receive him 
kindly." There is unquestionably a command : "Re- 
ceive YE." To whom is this command addressed? 
To bishops? It is not. To the "Session of the 
ehurch,^^ composed of the pastor and the "ruling el- 
ders " ? No. To whom, then ? To the very persons 
to whom the Epistle was addressed ; and it was writ- 
ten "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to 
be saints" (i. 7). No ingenuity can torture this lan- 
guage into a command given to the officers of the 
church in Rome. The members of the church — whose 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 191 

designation was " saints '^ — were addressed, and they 
were commanded to ^^ receive the weak in faith/^ It 
was their business to decide who should be admit- 
ted into their brotherhood ; and Paul, under the im- 
pulses of inspiration, says, ^^ Him that is weak in the 
faith receive jeJ^ It was, of course, their duty to 
withhold their fellowship from those who had no 
faith. The right of the apostolic churches to with- 
draw their fellowship from unworthy members (2 
Thess. iii. 6) plainly implies their right to receive 
persons of proper qualifications into their fellowship. 
It is inconceivable that they had the authority to ex- 
clude, but not to receive, members. 

I now proceed to show that the New-Testament 
churches exercised the right of excluding unworthy 
members. In 1 Cor. v. 1-5 we read as follows : ^' It 
is reported commonly that there is fornication among 
you, and such fornication as is not so much as named 
among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's 
wife. And ye are puifed up, and have not rather 
mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be 
taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent 
in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as 
though I were present, concerning him that hath so 
done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the 
power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one 



192 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the 
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus/^ 

It is quite worthy of remark that, while Paul 
"judged ^^ that the incestuous member ought to be 
exchided from the church, he did not exclude him. 
He had no right to do so, and did not claim the right. 

The same apostle said to the " churches of Galatia,'^ 
"I would they were even cut off which trouble you'^ 
(Gal. V. 12); but he did not cut them off, though he 
desired it to be done and advised that it should be 
done. 

It is worthy of notice too that the members of the 
Corinthian church could not, in their individual ca- 
pacity^ exclude the incestuous man. It was necessary 
to their action in the premises that they should be 
" gathered together.^^ They must assemble as a church 
and exemplify the doctrine of a pure democracy. Thus 
assembling, " the power of our Lord Jesus Christ ^^ 
was to be with them. They were to act by his au- 
thority and to execute his will ; for he makes it in- 
cumbent on his churches to administer discipline. In 
the last verse of the chapter referred to, Paul says : 
" Put away from among yourselves that wicked per- 
son." Here is a command, given by an inspired man, 
requiring the exclusion of an unworthy member of 
the church at Corinth. To whom was the command 
addressed ? To the official members of the church ? 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 193 

No, but " unto the church of God which is at Corinth, 
to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be 
saints." 

The right of a church to exclude disorderly persons 
from its fellowship is recognized in these words : " Now 
we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every 
brother that walketh disorderly" (2 Thess. iii. 6). 
This command was addressed " to the church of the 
Thessalonians." To ^* withdraw " from a " disorderly 
brother " is the same thing as to exclude him. There 
is a cessation of church-fellowship. 

I have not referred to Matt, xviii. 17, because I 
shall notice it in another place. The reader will see 
on examination that the passage clearly shows the 
power of ^^ the church " to perform the act of excom- 
munication by which the member cut off becomes ^'as 
a heathen man and a publican." 

It is not more evident that New-Testament churches 
received and excluded members than that they restored 
excluded members who gave satisfactory evidence of 
penitence. In 2 Cor. ii. 6-8 the "incestuous man" is 
again referred to, as follows: "Sufficient to such a 
man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. 
So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, 
and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be 
swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I 

17 



194 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward 
hira/^ 

Paul manages this case with the greatest delicacy 
and tenderness. He refers to the excluded member 
Avithout the least allusion to the disgraceful offence 
for which he was excluded. ^^ Sufficient/^ says he, 
"is this punishment ^^ — that is^ the object of the ex- 
clusion had been accomplished. The church had 
shown its determination not to connive at sin, and 
the excluded member had become penitent. But the 
point under consideration is that the apostle advised 
the restoration of the penitent offender. Paul could 
no more restore him to the church than he could ex- 
clude him from it; but he says, "I beseech you that 
ye would confirm your love toward him.^^ The power 
and the right to restore were with the church, and 
Paul solicits an exercise of the power and of the 
right. The great apostle, in saying " I beseech you,^^ 
bows to the majesty of the doctrine of church inde- 
pendence. He virtually admits that nothing could be 
done unless the church chose to act. 

In this connection one fact should be carefully ob- 
served : The power of the Corinthian church to restore 
this excluded member is unquestionable. The fact 
which deserves special notice and emphasis is that the 
power, in apostolic churches, to restore excluded mem- 
bers implies the power of receiving members, and also 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 195 

of expelling the unwortliy. Without a first reception 
there could be no exclusion, and without exclusion 
there could be no subsequent restoration. Thus the 
act of restoration irresistibly implies the two previous 
acts of reception and exclusion. Now, if the New- 
Testament churches had the power and the right to 
do these three things, they must have had the pow-er 
and the right to transact any other business coming 
before them. Nothing can be of more vital import- 
ance to the welfare, and even to the existence, of a 
church than the reception, the exclusion, and the res- 
toration of members. There are no three acts whose 
influence on the organic structure and prosperity of a 
church is so great ; and tliese acts the churches of the 
New Testament undoubtedly performed. 

Here I might let the foundation principle of church 
independency rest; but there is other proof of the 
New-Testament recognition of that principle. 

SECTION V. 
The churches of the New Testament appointed their 

officers. 

In the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles 
there is an account of the election of Matthias to the 
apostleship. He was to succeed Judas the traitor. 
The most natural inference is that Matthias was 
chosen by the ^^ one hundred and twenty disciples'^ 



196 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

mentioned in verse 15. These " disciples ^^ were, no 
doubt, the church to which the three thousand con- 
verts were added on the day of Pentecost. The 
brethren must have been held in high estimation by- 
Peter if called on, in conjunction with the apostles 
themselves, to elect a successor to Judas. 

In Acts vi. there is reference to the circumstances 
which originated the oflRce of deacon, and also to the 
manner in which the first deacons were appointed. 
We read as follows : "And in those days, when the 
number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a 
murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, be- 
cause their widows were neglected in the daily minis- 
tration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the 
disciples unto them, and said. It is not reason that we 
should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven 
men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and 
wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, 
and to the ministry of the word. And the saying 
pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, 
a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, 
and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Par- 
menas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; whom 
they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed 
they laid their hands on them." 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 197 

It will be seen from this narrative that the apostles 
referred the matter of grievance to " the multitude of 
the disciples ;" directed the " brethren to look out 
seven men ;'' that " the saying pleased the whole 
multitude;" that "they chose Stephen'^ and the 
others. The democracy of the whole arrangement is 
as clear as the light of day. The people, the whole 
membership of the church at Jerusalem, were recog- 
nized as the responsible source of authority, and they 
were required to make selection of suitable men. Large 
as was the number of church-members, they did not, 
for the sake of convenience, or for any other reason, 
delegate to a representative few the power to act for 
tliem. They knew nothing of a delegation of power. 
The whole multitude acted. 

In Acts xiv. 23 there is mention made of the ordi- 
nation of elders in every church, as follows : "And 
when they had ordained them elders in every church, 
and had prayed w^ith fasting, they commended them 
to the Lord on whom they believed.'^ Some think 
that William Tyndale's translation comes nearer to 
the meaning of the original. With the spelling 
modernized, it is as follows : "And when they had 
ordained them seniors by election, in every congre- 
gation, after they had prayed and fasted, they com- 
mended them to God, on whom they believed.'' The 

word in the original here translated "ordained'' liter- 
17* 



198 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

ally means " to stretch forth the hand/^ as is the cus- 
tom in Baptist churches wlien a vote is taken. Tyn- 
dale puts in the words ^^by election/' believing, as he 
did, that the New-Testament churches elected their 
elders by the votes of the members. He also states 
in his Rights of the Church — as quoted by Lyman 
Coleman in his Apostolical and Primitive Church (p. 
63) — that the Greek word referred to (cheirotoneo, from 
cheir, "the hand/' and teinoy "to stretch forth'') is 
interpreted as he interprets it " by Erasmus, Beza, 
Diodati, and those who translated the Swiss, French, 
Italian, Belgic, and even Engh'sh, Bibles, till the Epis- 
copal correction, which leaves out the words, ^ by elec- 
tion,' as w^ell as the marginal notes, which affirm that 
the apostles did not thrust pastors into the church 
through a lordly superiority, but chose and placed 
them there by the voice of the congregation,^^ 

Every one can imagine why the " Episcopal correc- 
tion " was made. The words " by election " would 
give the " laity " an agency and an influence which 
the " Episcopal clergy " would not willingly allow. 
The word cheirotoneo is used but twice in the New 
Testament — in the passage under consideration and 
in 2 Cor. viii. 19. In the latter it is translated "cho- 
sen," and the choice was " by the churches." In the 
former it certainly means that elders were chosen, ap- 
pointed, not without, but by means of, the suffrages of 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 199 

the churches. Mr. Barnes, in his notes on the passage, 
well remarks : " It is said, indeed, that Paul and Bar- 
nabas did this. But probably all that is meant by it 
is that they presided in the assembly when the choice 
was made. It does not mean that they appointed 
them without consulting the church ; but it evidently 
means that they appointed them in the usual way of 
appointing officers- — by the suffi'ages of the people.^^ 

In view of the facts now presented, it is plain that 
according to the New Testament the officers of a church 
are chosen by the church. No one church has the 
right to choose officers for another. No combination 
of churches has the right. Every church is as inde- 
pendent in its action as if it were the only church in 
the world. It will not be forgotten that ^^ elders were 
ordained in every church.^^ There w^as, of course, uni- 
formity of custom : all the churches of apostolic times 
were formed after the same model. That there was 
diversity in their formation is utterly incredible. 

In further support of the principle of Independency, 
I state the following facts without elaborating them ; 
In the Jerusalem Council of which we are informed 
in Acts XV., " the whole church,^^ the ^^ brethren," are 
named in connection with the ^^ apostles and elders:'^ 
"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the 
whole church, to send chosen men f' "And they wrote 
letters by them after this manner : The apostles and 



200 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

elders and brethren send greeting/^ The members of 
the church at Jerusalem acted, as well as the apostles 
and the elders. 

The churches of apostolic times sent forth ministers 
on missionary-tours. When Antioch received the word 
of God, the church at Jerusalem ^^sent forth Barnabas, 
that he should go as far as Antioch '^ (Acts xi. 22). 
His labors were successful — ^^much people was added 
to the Lord '^ — and at a subsequent period the church 
in Antioch sent out Saul and Barnabas, who made a 
long journey, performed much labor, returned, and 
reported to the church "all that God had done with 
them.'^ They "gathered the church together'^ before 
they gave an account of their labors.* With what 
deferential respect did these ministers treat the church 
that sent them forth ! Their example is worthy of 
imitation by ministers of all generations. 

The apostles, so far from exercising lordship over 
the churches, did not control their charities. This is 
seen in Acts v. 4; xi. 29, 30; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2; 2 Cor. 
ix. 7. The churches, too, selected messengers to convey 
their charities.f Surely, if they chose those whom they 
put in charge of their pecuniary contributions, they 
appointed those to whom they committed their spirit- 
ual interests. 

^ See Acts xiii. 1-3 ; xiv. 26, 27. 

t See 1 Cor. xvi. 3j 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19; Phil. ii. 25; iv. 18. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 201 

In view of all the considerations now presented, the 
position held by Baptists — namely, that the New-Tes- 
tament churches appointed their officers — is established 
beyond successful denial. I term this the position of 
Baptists; for they alone hold it in the fulness of its 
significance. Certainly no other religious denomina- 
tion in this country so holds it. There is among Epis- 
copalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists no 
local church that has exclusive authority to appoint its 
minister or pastor. No rector is placed over an Epis- 
copal congregation without the action of a bishop. 
With Lutherans, what is called the "Ministerium,^^ 
which is " composed of ministers only,'^ has the right 
of '^ licensing and ordaining ministers/^ Among Pres- 
byterians, whatever a local church may do, the action 
of Presbytery is necessary in licensing and ordaining 
men to preach. With Methodists, pastors are settled 
over local churches by the appointment of bishops. 
Even the office of " local preacher '^ cannot be conferred 
by a local congregation. The action of a "Quarterly 
Conference ^Ms necessary in granting license to preach. 

Of these four large denominations it has to be said 
that their regulations with regard to the appointment 
of ministers are in conflict with the New-Testament 
principle of church independence. This principle is 
violated when a local church is denied the right of 
appointing its own officers. Congregationalists are 



202 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

generally supposed to agree with Baptists as to the 
appointment of ministers; but they do not. Their 
theory may be correct; but if so, their practice is a 
departure from it. They have what they call " Con- 
sociations '^ and "Associations/' the former chiefly in 
Connecticut. With regard to these, Dr. Dexter admits 
that there are in them " Presbyterian tendencies ;" while 
of Associations he says : "As a matter of convenience, 
advantage has been taken of these regular assemblages 
of the pastors, by candidates for the pulpit, to present 
themselves, after thorough training, for examination 
for a certificate of approval — in common parlance, 
' for licensure.' '' * - 

It is easy to see that Dr. Dexter does not approve 
this method of "licensure;" but it is difficult to see 
how he can help it. The practice seems to be estab- 
lished, f In proof of this, I may quote from what 
The Congregationalist of April 13, 1881, says of the 
meeting of the Manhattan Association : " The princi- 
pal business was the examination of four seniors of 
Union Seminary, who passed creditably and were li- 
censed to preach." Among the examiners were Drs. 

* Dexter On Congregationalism^ p. 225, edition of 1865. 

f To show the correctness of this view, I may state that Aden- 
iram Judson was "licensed to preach'^ in the year 1810 by an 
"Association of Congregationalist Ministers." (See Wayland's 
Memoir of Judson, vol. i., p. 51.) 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 203 

Wm. M. Taylor, R. S. Storrs, and Ray Palmer — quite 
renowned names. These distinguished men have thus 
given their sanction to the plan of licensing ministers, 
not by churches, but by Associations. Baptists stand 
alone in insisting that the right to license and ordain 
ministers is a right, under Christ, resident in a local 
church. It exists nowhere else. If exercised by 
bishops, Ministeriums, Consociations, or Associations, 
there is usurpation ; and, of course, there is a viola- 
tion of the order of the New Testament. Baptists 
believe that God calls men to preach the gospel, and 
that the churches recognize his call. They cannot 
make a minister, but they can approve what God has 
done — at least, what they believe he has done. This 
is all a church does in voting for the ordination of one- 
of its members to the pastoral office. Believing him 
to be divinely called to the office, the church, by its 
vote, recognizes the call ; and this vote of recognition 
is the essence of ordination. Such a vote must pre- 
cede a Council of ordination, and the Council is called 
by the church of which the brother is a member. An- 
drew Fuller well remarks : ^' The only end for w^iich 
I join in an ordination is to unite with the elders of 
that and other churches in expresdng my brotherly con- 
currence in the election^ which ^ if it fell on what I ac- 
counted an unsound or unworthy character^ I should 
withhold. Though churclies are so far independent of 



204 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

each other as that no one has a right to interfere in the 
concerns of another without their consent, unless it 
be as we all have a right to exhort and admonish 
one another, yet there is a common union required to 
subsist between them for the good of the whole; and, 
so far as the ordination of a pastor affects this common 
or general interest, it is fit that there should be a gen- 
eral concurrence in it. It was on this principle, I 
conceive, rather than as an exercise of authority, that 
the apostles, whose office was general, took the lead in 
the primitive ordinations. When the churches increased 
they appointed such men as Timothy and Titus to 
do what they would have done themselves had they 
been present; and when all extraordinary officers 
ceased, the same general object w^ould be answered 
by the concurrence of the elders of the surrounding 
churches.'^ * 

No action of an ordaining Council can in any way 
impair the integrity or independence of the church 
which calls such Council. When a Council recognizes 
and approves what a church has done, its moral influ- 
ence, though it can impart no grace, is promotive of 
the usefulness of the pastor ordained and of the 
church over which he presides. If, however, a Coun- 
cil should withhold its recognition and approval, and 
if) by its advice, tlie church should revoke its former 
^' Works of Andrew Fuller, vol. iii., p. 494. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 205 

action, there would be nothing in all this conflicting 
in the least with the doctrine of church independence. 

SECTION VI. 
Church action is filial. 

The independence of a church implies the right of 
a majority of its members to rule in accordance with 
the laws of Christ. In 2 Cor, ii. 6 it is written : 
"Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which 
was inflicted of many." A literal translation of the 
words rendered " of many " would be " by the more " 
— that is, by the majority. The rendering of Mac- 
knight, and also of Davidson in his Revision^ is "by 
the greater number." If, as has been shown, the 
governmental power of a church is with the members, 
it follows that a majority must rule — that is to say, 
either the majority or the minority must govern. But 
it is absurd to refer to the rule of the minority. That 
a majority must rule is so plain a principle of Inde- 
pendency, and so plain a principle of common sense, 
that it is needless to dwell upon it. 

It has been stated on a preceding page that the 
power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated. 
From this fact results the finality of church action. 
The church at Corinth could not transfer her authority 
to the church at Philippi, nor could the church at 
Antioch convey her power to the church at Ephesus; 

18 



206 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

nor could all the apostolic churches delegate their 
power to an Association, a Synod, a Conference, or a 
Convention. The power of a church is manifestly 
inalienable, and, this being true, church action is 
final. That there is no tribunal higher than that of 
a church is evident from Matt, xviii. 15-17 : " More- 
over, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and 
tell him his fault between thee and him alone : If he 
shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if 
he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two 
more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
every word may be established. And if he shall 
neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if 
he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as 
a heathen man and a publican.'^ 

Here the Saviour lays down a rule for the settle- 
ment of grievances among brethren. If the offender, 
when told of his fault, does not give satisfaction, the 
offended party is to take with him " one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every 
w^ord may be established.^^ But if the offender "shall 
neglect to hear them,'^ what is to be done ? " Tell it 
to the cliurch.^^ What church ? The aggregate body 
of the redeemed ? This is equally impossible and 
absurd. I ask again. What church? Evidently the 
local congregation to whicli the parties belong. If 
the offender does not hear the church, what then and 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 207 

finally? "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man 
and a publican^' — that is, let the offender no longer 
be held in church-fellowship, but let him occupy the 
place of " a heathen man and a publican.'^ There is 
to be an end to Christian fellowship and association. 
This idea cannot be more fully emphasized than by 
the reference to " a heathen man [a Gentile] and a 
publican/^ the most unworthy character, in Jew^ish 
estimation, to be found among Gentiles. 

But can there be no appeal from the action of a 
single local church to an "Association " or a " Presby- 
tery ^' or a " Conference ^^ ? No ; there is no appeal. 
Shall an Association or a Presbytery or a Conference 
put the offender back in church- fellowship, when the 
church by its action classed him with heathens and 
publicans? This is too preposterous. What kind of 
fellowship would it be, when the church had declared 
the excluded member unw'orthy of its fellowship? 
Will it be asked. What is to be done if the action of 
a church does not give satisfaction to all concerned ? 
I answer, Do what is done when the action of a Pres- 
byterian General Assembly or a Methodist General 
Conference or an Episcopal General Convention does 
not give satisfaction. Do nothing. There must be a 
stopping-place; there must be final action. Baptists 
say, with the New Testament before them, that the 
action of each local congregation of baptized believers 



208 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

is final.* Let those who oppose the Baptist form of 
church government show anywhere in the Scriptures 
the remotest allusion to an appeal from the decision 
of a church to any other tribunal. It cannot be done. 
There were, in apostolic times, no tribunals analogous 
to modern Synods, Conferences, Conventions. Let those 
who affirm that there were such " courts of appeal '^ 
adduce the evidence. On them rests the burden of 
proof. Baptists deny that there is such proof, and 
say that for any man to furnish it is as difficult as 
for " a camel to go through the eye of a needle.'^ 

The view which I have presented of the independ- 
ence of the first churches is in such full historical 
accordance with the facts in the case that many dis- 
tinguished Pedobaptists have been obliged to concede 
it. They have done this while giving their practical 
sanction to other forms of church government. Hence 
Mosheim, a Lutheran and a bitter opponent of Bap- 
tists, in referring to the first century, says: ^'The 

■^ The above reasoning takes it for granted that the excluded 
member is justly exehided. If so, he must give evidence of peni- 
tence, in order to his restoration. If unjustly excluded, and the 
church does not, when the injustice is shown, annul its action, the 
excluded member may apply for admission into a sister-church, 
which may, in the exercise of its independence, receive him with- 
out encroaching on the independence of the excluding church. 
The opposite view would imply that the excluding church has a 
monopoly of independence, which is absurd. 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 209 

churches, in those early times, were entirely independ- 
ent, none of tliem being subject to any foreign juris- 
diction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own 
laws; for, though the churches founded by the apos- 
tles had this particular deference shown to them, that 
they were consulted in diflScult and doubtful cases, yet 
they had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy 
over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for 
them/' * 

Archbishop Whately, a dignitary of the Church of 
England, referring to the New-Testament churches, 
says : ^^ They were each a distinct, independent com- 
munity on earth, united by the common principles on 
which they were founded, and by their mutual agree- 
ment, affection, and respect, but not having any one 
recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sover- 
eignty of one of these societies over others." Again : 
"A CHURCH and a diocese seem to have been for a 
considerable time coextensive and identical. And each 
church or diocese (and consequently each superintend- 
ent), though connected with the rest by ties of faith 
and hope and charity, seems to have been (as has been 
already observed) perfectly independent, as far as re- 
gards any power of control.'' f 

This is strong testimony from a Lutheran and an 

* Maclaine's Mosheim, Baltimore edition, vol. i., p. 39. 
t Kingdom of Chriat, Carter's edition, pp. 36, 44, 
18* 



210 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

Episcopalian. They would have given a different 
account of the matter if they could have done so 
consistently with truth. They virtually condemned 
their denominational organizations in writing what I 
have quoted. I might refer to Neander, and to many 
other Pedobaptists of distinction who have expressed 
themselves in substance as Mosheim and Whately have 
done ; but it is needless. Baptists are not dependent 
on the testimony of church historians. They make 
their appeal to the New Testament of our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ. If all the church histories in 
the world said the monarchical or aristocratic form of 
church government was maintained from the death of 
the apostle John onward, they would not be moved by 
it while the New Testament represents every church as 
a democracy fully competent to transact its own busi- 
ness. "To the law and to the testimonv :'^ "All 
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- 
able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
struction in righteousness : that the man of God may 
be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" 
(Isa. viii. 20; 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17). 

Baptists have ever regarded every church as com- 
plete in itself, independent, so far as its government is 
concerned, of every other church under heaven. They 
have watched with jealous eye all encroachments on 
church independence. For their views on baptism — • 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 211 

its subjects and its act — a regenerated church-member- 
ship, and the independent form of church government, 
they have been persecuted, tortured, put to death. 
Tiieir blood has flowed like water. From their ranks 
have been taken martyrs who, having endured " much 
tribulation," are now before the throne of God. But 
the principles of Baptists still live, and will live ; for 
they are indestructible — divinely vital — cannot die. 

SECTION VIL 
Superior advantages of Independency. 

If the form of church government advocated in 
this chapter is in accordance with the New Testament, 
it follows that it has advantages superior to those of 
all other forms of government. Some of these ad- 
vantages will now be pointed out. Of church inde- 
pendence it may be said : 

1. It is best suited to every form of civil governyaent. 

In monarchies, whether absolute or limited, there is 
no reason why the churches of Jesus Christ should 
not be independent. Monarchies have to do with 
men as civil subjects, but not in their relations to God. 
The power of the monarch is a secular power, and can- 
not be rightfully exercised outside of the realm of 
secular jurisdiction; while Christianity belongs to the 
spiritual realm and confines itself to it. But even 
when monarchy transcends its proper limits and in- 



212 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

terferes with spiritual concerns, there is no reason 
Avhy the independent form of church government 
should be exchanged for any other. In proof of this 
I need only refer to the fact that the apostolic churches 
were independent while the tyrant Nero reigned at 
Rome and caused the weight of his sceptre to be felt 
in all the provinces of his empire. The churches 
even then, wherever permitted to meet for worship, 
transacted whatever business claimed their attention. 

What has been said of monarchies may, of course, 
be said with greater emphasis of aristocratic forms of 
civil government. Under the legitimate operation of 
such governments there is no encroachment on tlie 
rights of churches, and the doctrine of church inde- 
pendence can be exemplified without collision with 
the civil authority. 

What is true of monarchies and aristocracies may 
be said with supreme emphasis of republics; for the 
latter recognize the people as the source of govern- 
mental power. This recognition accords with the 
philosophy of independent church government. If 
in monarchies, where the people are supposed to exist 
for the purpose of carryini; into effect the monarches 
will ; if in aristocracies^ where the people are reduced, 
comparatively, to ciphers — churches can flourish in 
their independence, much more is this independence 
cherished under the auspices of republican govern- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 213 

ment. Truly, then, may it be said that church in- 
dependence is best suited to every form of civil 
government. 

2. It is in accord with the tendencies of the age. 

The most superficial observer of men and things is 
aware that the democratic element has — occasionally, 
at least — indicated its existence in Europe for some 
centuries, while in recent years it has increased in 
strength. The colloquial remark has been attributed 
to Thomas Jefferson — whether truly or not I cannot 
say — that " the former European doctrine Avas that the 
great mass of men were born with saddles on their 
backs, while a few were born with boots and spurs on, 
and that the purpose of Divine Providence was for 
those with the boots and spurs to ride those having 
the saddles on them." 

If this absurd doctrine has not been exploded, it is 
certainly in a process of explosion. Oppressed hu- 
manity, under the burdens imposed by monarchy and 
aristocracy, is everywhere restless and w^aiting for a 
suitable opportunity to assert its rights. The tenden- 
cies of the age are in favor of bringing the democratic 
element out of obscurity and exalting it to prominence. 
It is fast becoming an axiom that the people are the 
source of power, and that sovereignty inheres in 
them — not in kings and aristocracies, but in the peo- 
ple. How much the practical workings of church in- 



214 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

dependence have had to do in developing the doctrine 
of popular rights it is impossible to say, but there is 
every reason to believe that they have promoted the 
development. Hence it may be said without hesita- 
tion that church independence is in accord with the 
tendencies of the age, 

3. It gives suitable prominence to the membership of a 
church. 

This is seen in the fact that without the agency of 
a church nothing can be done. Pastor and deacons 
are powerless if a church declines to act. Their official 
business is to do that for which they are elected by the 
suffrages of the church of which they are members. 
They are responsible, under Christ, to the church 
from w'hich they receive not only official authority, 
but official existence. In the forms of government 
preferred by Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, 
and Methodists there is only an indirect recognition 
of the body of the members as the source of power. 
The recognition is more decided among Presbyterians 
than among the rest, but it is not complete. The con- 
stitution of their ^' highest court,^^ the General As- 
sembly, is proof of this. The tribunal of last appeal 
is composed of minisj:ers and ruling elders in equal 
numbers. This equality indicates a very partial con- 
cession of rights to the members. Every one can see 
this who will take the trouble to learn how much 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS 215 

greater is the number of members than of ministers. 
With regard to Episcopalians, it will be seen how 
powerless the members are, even in connection with 
the ^^ inferior clergy/^ when it is stated that in their 
General Conventions nothing can be done without the 
concurrence of the ^^ House of Bishops.'^ That the 
people are comparatively ignored by Lutheranism ap- 
pears in the fact that a ^^ Ministerium," that ^^ licenses 
ministers/^ is composed entirely of ministers, and that 
the Synod, the highest tribunal, from which there is 
no appeal, is formed by an equal number of " clerical 
and lay delegates,^' Among Methodists the ^^ lay ele- 
ment^' is conspicuous by its absence. Within the 
memory of many persons now living it was entirely 
absent; for Annual and General Conferences were 
made up exclusively of " preachers.^^ In some sections 
of the country this rigid rule is now somewhat re- 
laxed, but how meagre is " lay representation ^' in any 
Conference! In opposition to all these aristocratic 
forms of church government, and in practical con- 
demnation of them all, the independent form presents 
itself, inviting examination and challenging admira- 
tion for what it does in giving suitable prominence to 
the members of a church. They are not ciphers, but 
the depositaries of the governmental power that Christ 
has conferred. Independency accepts this fact and 
claims it as one of its superior advantages. 



216 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

4. Another advantage is seen in the appointment of 
chxirch officers. 

These officers are of two classes — pastors and deacons. 
The former are in special charge of the spiritualities, 
and the latter of the temporalities, of the churches. 
Who can be so competent to choose these officers as 
the churches themselves? With the scriptural quali- 
fications for the two offices as given by inspired men, 
cannot the churches best decide who among them 
should fill those offices? Can they not tell who are 
men of such Christian integrity and sanctified com- 
mon sense as will most probably, if not most certainly, 
^^ use the office of a deacon well ^^ ? So also as to pas- 
tors. These are to " watch for souls as they that must 
give account/^ and who are so well qualified to select 
the men to preside as the churches to be presided over? 
Shall they not decide who shall watch for their souls 
and for the souls of the impenitent around them ? Are 
they not best prepared to say who among them possess 
the moral and the spiritual requisites, as enumerated 
by Paul, for the office of bishop? As to the intellect- 
ual qualification implied in the words ^^apt to teach,^^ 
who can so satisfactorily tell that a man is apt to teach 
as those who have been taught by him? The inde- 
pendence of the churches, as illustrated in the ap- 
pointment of their officers, must commend itself to the 
common sense of all unprejudiced persons. The ad- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 217 

vantage of this form of government over every other 
must be apparent. The great thing, however, to be 
said for it is that it accords with the New Testament. 

5. It furnishes the most effectual preservative from 
doctrinal error. 

Doubtless many persons will at once dissent from 
this view. They suj)pose that a consolidated church, 
embracing a province or a kingdom, is the best protec- 
tion from the inroads of heresy. They think that the 
very compactness of such a church must resist the sub- 
tle influences of error, however penetrating those in- 
fluences may be. Is this so ? Has it been historically 
true? Was it true of the Church of England when 
Lord Chatham said that it had "a Calvinistic creed, a 
Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy '^? Is it true 
now, when various false doctrines receive not only 
toleration, but encouragement, and when the mere 
existence of what are termed " Broad Church ^^ views 
implies that the very foundations of orthodoxy are 
disturbed? No; the Church of England with its 
*^ Thirty-Nine Articles," more than three centuries 
old, is vulnerable to the assaults of false doctrine. 
Its strong ecclesiastic bands, riveted by Parliamentary 
enactments, create a compactness which gives greater 
facility to the infectious diffusion of error. "A little 
leaven leaveneth the whole lump." This is true 
whether the hnnp be large or small; but the danger 

19 



218 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

is greater where there is one large mass than where 
there are many that are small. Far be it from me to 
say that a church with the independent form of gov- 
ernment may not become corrupted by heretical doc- 
trines. History would falsify such a statement; but 
the corruption of one such church would have no 
necessary connection wdth the corruption of another. 
Indeed, the very independence of the churches might 
be, and if they were in a proper spiritual state would 
be, utilized in preventing the spread of the doctrinal 
corruption. On the other hand, a consolidated church, 
coextensive with a state or a kingdom, would furnish 
few if any facilities for arresting the tide of error when 
once set in. A local church, under a sense of its re- 
sponsibility, is quick to detect the first appearance of 
vital heresy and to stamp it with censure. If the her- 
etic sees liis error, confesses it, and renounces it, the 
evil is at an end ; if he persists in it, the church with- 
draws its fellowship from him and he becomes com- 
paratively powerless for mischief. Suppose such a 
heretical minister to belong; to the Presbyterian Church, 
He first disturbs the local congregation, then the Pres- 
bytery, then the Synod, and finally the General Assem- 
bly. Thus he has one opportunity after another to 
make known and to defend his false doctrines; so 
tliat the Presbyterian form of government, instead of 
preserving from doctrinal heresy, may, in the sense 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 219 

indicated, promote it. Who does not see that church 
independence is the best preservative from doctrinal 
error? Dr. Hodge is said to have expressed his won- 
der at the uniformity among Baptist ministers as to 
matters of doctrine, in view of the independence of 
Baptist churches. Perhaps his philosopliical mind 
overlooked the fact that the uniformity is promoted 
by the independence. 

I have referred to the withdrawal of fellowship on 
the part of a church from a heretic as a means of ar- 
resting the spread of doctrinal error. Another thing 
deserves mention : Where an entire church becomes 
heretical in doctrine or disorderly in practice, other 
churches, in the exercise of their independence, may 
w^ithdraw their fellowship from it, and thus confine its 
injurious influence to its own narrow limits. Whether, 
therefore, we consider doctrinal error in connection 
with an individual church-member or in connection 
with a church itself, the independent form of gov- 
ernment is the best security against its contagious 
encroachments. 

Nor is this all. 

6. It secures J also, more satisfactory corrective disci- 
pline. 

There is no perfection in this world. It may be 
sought more hopefully among the churches of the 
saints than elsewhere, but even there it will be sought 



220 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

in vain. All that is said in the New Testament about 
corrective church discipline implies the imperfection of 
church-members. This imperfection often shows itself 
in greater or less degrees. In its ordinary manifesta- 
tions it must be borne with. Christian love and Chris- 
tian forbearance require this. Sometimes, however, a 
church-member so violates his Christian obligations as 
to grieve his brethren, who admonish him and labor in 
the spirit of meekness to restore him. Ordinarily, they 
are successful and the offending brother is happily re- 
claimed. This is not always the case; in some instances 
it becomes the duty of a church to pass an act of ex- 
clusion. This, as we have seen, the New Testament not 
only authorizes, but requires. In a case of this kind 
the offender is arraigned and the charge or charges, 
with distinct specifications, are presented. The church 
sits as a Christian jury and hears all the testimony in 
the case. The arraigned brother has every opportunity 
to explain and rebut, if possible, the testimony against 
him. The church is disposed to give him the benefit 
of all doubts, but after a full hearing of the matter is 
convinced that the glory of God and the honor of his 
cause demand the exclusion of the brother. He is 
therefore excluded. The act of exclusion may offend 
liim and not satisfy his kindred and partisan friends ; 
but is it practicable to administer corrective discipline 
so satisfactorily in any other way? The man has been 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 221 

tried bv his peers and found guilty. These peers, too, 
are of the " vicinage/^ and fully competent to under- 
stand and appreciate all local circumstances bearing on 
the case. Does not the civil law mean something in 
providing for "a jury of the vicinage'^? There is 
profound significance in the independence of each 
church, so far as the trial and the exclusion of a guilty 
member may be concerned. While, therefore, it can- 
not be said that the independent form of cliurch gov- 
ernment secures an absolutely satisfactory corrective 
church discipline, it may be said that the discipline so 
provided for is the most satisfactory that can be had. 

7. It cherishes a sense of individual responsibility. 

This is a matter of great importance, for Christian- 
ity is an intensely personal thing. It has to do with 
men in their individual relations to God. There is no 
such thing as the regeneration of masses of men, nor 
is there regeneration by proxy. The great change 
takes place in the individual heart. Nothing is more 
personal than regeneration. When the materials of a 
Christian church are reduced to units, the units are 
found in regenerated persons. There is personal re- 
pentance, personal faith, personal baptism. In making 
a profession of Christianity, personal obligations are 
recognized and publicly assumed. Church relations 
do not impair, but intensify, a sense of individual re- 
sponsibility. An impressive consciousness of this fact 

19* 



222 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

is indispensable to a proper performance of church 
duties. 

To show that the independent form of church gov- 
ernment cherishes a sense of individual responsibility, 
it is sufficient to say that all matters coming before a 
church are decided by the votes of the members. They 
vote as individuals ; and, as a majority rules, no one 
can tell but his vote may be decisive. Surely, then, 
every vote should be intelligently given ; and this view 
of the case is a strong argument in favor of sanctified 
intelligence. Questions of great importance must 
be decided. These questions not only involve the 
spiritual welfare of the church itself, but often have 
an important bearing on the local interests of the com- 
munity and the general interests of the kingdom of 
Christ. Church-officers are chosen by the suffii^ages of 
the members. How essential that tlie right man be 
appointed as pastor! In order to this, church-mem- 
bers must be acquainted with the purity of his Chris- 
tian character, and also with his doctrinal soundness. 
A vote referring to two points so vital as these must 
be given under a sense of responsibility. The influ- 
ence of deacons has much to do with tlie condition of 
a church, and therefore the best men should be ap- 
pointed to the office. A church too must decide 
what objects of Christian work should receive its 
encouragement and patronage. These objects may be 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 223 

SO numerous that all of them cannot receive attention ; 
and if so, there must be a selection of those deemed 
most important. What shall be the proportion of 
pecuniary aid given to Home Missions, Foreign Mis- 
sions, Publication Work, and Ministerial Education, 
the church must decide. The decision is no trivial 
matter. It calls for a union of knowledge and piety. 
One of the most painful duties of a church is to 
deal in a way of discipline with unworthy members. 
In all the proceedings in such cases the laws of Christ 
are to be sacredly observed. These laws, then, must 
be understood that they may be intelligently applied. 
A m^ember who is guilty of " disorderly conduct,^^ and 
who fails to give satisfaction by penitence and refor- 
mation, must be excluded. It is a solemn thing to 
w^ithdraw the hand of fellowship, and it must be done 
under a sense of responsibility. When, according to 
apostolic command, ^' a heretic ^Ms to be ^^ rejected, ^^ 
the act of rejection is to be performed by the church. 
A renunciation of the fundamental doctrines of tlie 
gospel demands this step. As a general thing, the 
members of a local church, having been regenerated 
by the Holy Spirit and justified by faith in Jesus 
Christ, are competent judges of sound doctrine. They 
may not understand many theological niceties, but they 
know the way of salvation. They "have an unction 
from the Holy One '' (1 John ii. 20). 



224 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

In view of all these considerations, showing what 
obligations rest on church-members and what duties 
are required at their hands, I affirm with strongest 
emphasis that the independent form of government 
cherishes a sense of individual responsibility. Those 
who have to decide great questions by their votes are 
in a responsible position. This fact impresses them ; 
they cannot ignore it ; they would not if they could. 
Their responsibility as church- members is to the Head 
of the church — the Lord Jesus Christ — and it is 
stamped with all the sacredness of the blood of his 
atoning sacrifice. Let the church-member take his 
stand by the cross, remembering that he has been in- 
dividually redeemed by him who died thereon, and he 
will cherish a sense of individual responsibility. He 
will feel the w^eight of the personal obligations resting 
on him. The doctrine of church independency will 
deepen his consciousness of these obligations; for it 
will teach him that he is not a cipher, but a man — A 
REDEEMED MAN, and ere long to be A glorified 

MAN. 



CONCLUSION, 



The foregoing pages show that there is something 
distinctive in the principles of Baptists. They differ 
from all other denominations; and the difference is so 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 225 

great as not only to justify, but to demand, their sepa- 
rate existence as a people. They are God's witnesses, 
and they are his only witnesses who "tell the truth, tlie 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth," on the points 
referred to in this volume. Should their testimony 
be suppressed, in W'hat religious denomination could 
"the whole truth ^^ concerning tlie subjects of baptism 
be found ? Xot one. The question, Who should be 
baptized? w^ould receive an answer in positive conflict 
with the teachings of the New Testament. Who but 
Baptists declare " the whole truth '' with regard to the 
exclusive baptismal act and the symbolic import of the 
act? If there are others, where are they? We know 
not. Nor do we know^ of any people, besides Bap- 
tists, who maintain " the whole truth " on the subject 
of a regenerated church-membership, embracing, as 
it does, the vital point that we come to the church 
through Christ, and not to Christ through the church 
and its ordinances. Baptists proclaim in the audience 
of the whole w^orld that persons have nothing to do 
with church relations and gospel ordinances till they 
are regenerated. Among whom, except Baptists, is the 
doctrine of church independency fully exemplified? 
Throughout this broad land we look in vain for the 
exemplification. Truly, Baptists are important wit- 
nesses; for they testify important things, and theirs 
is the only testimony on these important matters. 



226 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

In view of the facts to which attcDtion has beea 
called in this volume, there are certain duties in- 
cumbent on Baptists, such as the following: 

1. They should acquaint themselves more thoroughly 
with Baptist jprindples. 

The Baptist Year-Booh for 1882 reports more than 
two and a third millions of Baptists in the United 
States. This is a large number, but it is sad to think 
that there may be in it many persons who cannot give 
a satisfactory reason why they are Baptists. Honesty 
and veracity would possibly require some to say, '^ We 
are Baptists because our fathers and mothers were.'^ 
Some might have to say, " The Baptists were the lead- 
ing people where we made profession of religion, and 
we joined them.'^ Others, in telling the truth of the 
matter, might be obliged to say, " We became Chris- 
tians in time of revival, and, as most of the converts 
united with the Baptists, we did so too." Others still 
would possibly find a suitable representative in the 
brother who said, "I liked the Baptist minister 
better than any other, and wished to be a member 
of his church." 

What reasons are these for being Baptists ! It is not 
necessary to say that such reasons should have no in- 
fluence, but they certainly should not be decisive. 
Proper reasons for becoming Baptists are to be found 
in the New Testament. They will be found without 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 227 

being specially sought — that is to say, if the Xew 
Testament is faithfully and diligently studied, the 
principles which distinguish Baptists will be -discov- 
ered. That these principles are in accordance with, 
and the outgrowth of, the teachings of Christ and the 
apostles is the conclusive reason why any one should 
be a Baptist. Let these principles be understood and 
appreciated, and there will be decided Baptists. They 
will be Baptists because they can be nothing else. The 
plain teachings of Scripture will permit them to be 
nothing else. It is ^^a lamentation, and shall be for 
a lamentation,^^ that any Baptists should have only a 
superficial acquaintance with the principles they pro- 
fess. Such persons, whether few or many, need in- 
struction that they may be intelligent Baptists, and 
that they may be able to give to every one w^ho asks 
them a reason for their faith and practice. 

2. Baptists should he more zealous in the propagation 
of their "principles. 

Good principles are good things, but they have no 
self-propagating power. Principles are powerless apart 
from the persons who hold them. Baptists sometimes 
forget this. They are so confident of the correctness 
of their principles as to feel that all will be well. They 
think that their views, without any effort on their part, 
will comnund themselves to general acceptance. They 
suppose that a good cause may be left to take care of 



228 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 

itself; but no cause, however good, takes care of itself. 
Its friends must advocate it, and by their advocacy se- 
cure its triumph. Baptists must not forget that tliey 
are "fellow-helpers to the truth." None of them 
should fail to give the " truth '^ their help. None 
should ever act as if they w^re ashamed of being Bap- 
tists. Their principles, when assailed, should never lack 
defence or vindication from them. Their silence, when 
they should speak, would be a culpable and an injurious 
silence. Baptists should be ready not only to meet and 
to repel attacks made on their principles, but should 
earnestly engage in the propagation of those principles. 
Leaving, on suitable occasions, their fortresses of de^ 
fence, they should invade the domain of error and 
become actively aggressive. This is one fault of some 
of the Baptists of this generation — that they do not 
zealously propagate their distinctive views. They 
should see to it that the truth as embodied in their 
distinctive principles is brought into direct, positive, 
constant, exterminating contact with the error opposed 
to those principles. What distinctive mission have 
Baptists, if this is not their mission ? — to present the 
truth in love on the matters wherein they differ from 
Pedobaptists. What is there but this that justifies 
their denominational existence and saves them from 
the reproach of being schismatics? If they liave a 
right to denominational life, it is their duty to propa- 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 229 

gate their distinctive principles, without which that 
life cannot be maintained. 

3. Tliey should pray more earnestly for the success and 
triumph of their distinctive principles. 

It is supposed by many that controversy drives away 
the spirit of prayer. Were this so, it would be very 
sad ; for there would be no spirit of prayer. Contro- 
versy is a necessity, and will be so long as truth and 
error are in the world. There may not at all times 
be controversy going on in the technical sense, but 
really and truly there is always controversy when 
truth and error are in collision. God is on the side 
of truth. Baptists worthy of the name believe with- 
out a doubt that their distinctive princij^les are true. 
Hence they can in all good conscience appeal to God 
in prayer, and ask him to care for his own truth and 
vindicate it by giving it success. Active effort to in- 
culcate and diffuse the truth should ever be preceded, 
accompanied, and followed by prayer. No principle 
is worth holding, the success and triumph of wliich 
cannot be consistently prayed for. Baptists, above all 
persons, should pray. Other denominations that cap- 
ture infants in their cradles and claim them as ^* the 
baptized children of the church ^^ are not so dependent 
on God for the continuance of their ecclesiastical life 
as are Baptists. For the latter there is no hope but 
in God — no hope, unless he by his Spirit regenerates 

20 



230 DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS. 

individuals of accountable years and thus fits them for 
membership in the churches. While Baptists must 
never fail to use means to disseminate their distinctive 
principles, they must call earnestly on God in prayer 
to give to those principles the success and triumph to 
which their importance and their value entitle them. 
There is wonderful efficacy in prayer. Let Baptists 
test its efficacy in connection with their distinctive 
principles. 

I present only one point more : 

4. Pedobaj)iists should candidly examine the distinctive 
principles of Baptists. 

These principles are not understood by multitudes 
in Pedobaptist communities. It is supposed that im- 
mersion as baptism is the only thing specially cha- 
racteristic of Baptists. Nor is this view confined to 
persons of ordinary intelligence. I have it from a 
perfectly credible source that General E. E. Lee not 
many years before his death said that he had just heard 
concerning the Baptists what surprised him — namely, 
that they did not baptize infants ! If General Lee had 
not known this all his life, what is to be said of persons 
of inferior intelligence? The General was an Episco- 
palian. Pedobaptists should inform themselves as to 
what Baptists believe. It would do them good, for it 
would give them important ideas on the subject of 
scriptural churches and Christian ordinances. Many 



DISTINCTIVE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISTS, 231 

of them, too, would be led to make a personal profes- 
sion of their faith in the act of Christian immersion. 
It was an examination of Baptist principles that in- 
fluenced Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, Horatio B. 
Hackett, Alexander Carson, Baptist W. Noel, N. M. 
Crawford, D. R. Campbell, Richard Fuller, and many- 
others, to renounce the errors of Pedobaptism, and to 
illustrate the spirit of obedience to Christ by being 
"buried with him in baptism/' 



INDEX. 



A. 

Abraham, 14, 19, 31, 38, 48, 49, 50, 
51, 52. 
justified by faith before cir- 
cumcision, 56. 
lineal descent from, no claim, 
60. 

Allen, John, 99. 

Aristobulus, 108. 

Aristotle, 106. 

Astolphus, 142, 

Augsburg Confession, 161. 

Augusti, 139. 

Augustine, 78. 

Austin, monk, 150. 



Baptism, administration of, in New 

Testament, 121. 
a figure, 54. 

Apostolic Epistles on, 33-39. 
argument for more than one, 

155. 
circumcision and, 63-72. 
classical use of word, 104-109. 
defined by Peter, 35. 
derivation of word, 90-96. 
design of, 113-121. 
historical record of, 135-146. 
infant, 16. 

effect on Christ's ordinance, 
87. 
20* 



Baptism, infant, effect on church, 
82. 
effect on subjects, 84-87. 
no good reason for, 80. 
supposed reference to, in Old 
Testament, 30-33. 
John's, 13, 14, 121-123. 
meaning of word, 96-104. 
not a seal, 54. 

not administered by Christ, 15. 
of Cririst not initiation to 

priestly office, 123. 
of Ethiopian eunuch, 24. 
of Saul, 151. 
Pedobaptist objection to, 147- 

158. 
prerequisites to, 159-168. 
use of word in New Testament, 

110-112. 
Westminster Confession on, 38. 
Baptismal regeneration, 160. 
Baptisms, household, 25-29. 
Baptist Year Book, 226. 
Baptists as witnesses to the truth, 
225. 
in what they agree with other 
denominations, 11. 
Barnes, Rev. Albert, 33, 119, 190, 

199. 
Baxter, Richard, 135. 
Beecher, Dr. Edward, 109, 112. 
Beza, 198. 

233 



234 



INDEX. 



Bishop, meaning of, 183. 

of London, 91. 
Blackstone, 96. 
Eloomfield, 119. 
Booth, 136 (note). 
Boswell, 136 (note). 
Brewster, Sir David, 142. 
Brown, Dr. J. Newton, 164, 165. 

O. 

Calvin, John, 81, 99, 100, 103, 133, 

140, 143, 157. 
Campbell, Alexander, 41, 126. 
Campbell, Dr. D. R., 230. 
Campbell, Dr. George, 100, 103. 
Carson, Dr. Alexander, 105, 230. 
Chalmers, Dr. Thomas, 101, 115, 

119. 
Chatham, Lord, 217. 
Chillingworth, 80. 
Church, difiference between so-called 

" Jewish " and Christian, 44. 
Church, a, 42-44. 

authority over members, 190- 

195. 
Baptist understanding of, 169- 

174. 
independence of, 182-224. 
officers of, 195. 
Circumcision, 53-72. 
of Timothy, 67, 
Clarke, Dr. Adam, 118, 119, 122 

(note). 
Coleman, Dr. Lyman, 198. 
Commission, the Great, 17-21. 
Conant, Dr. T. J., 32, 105. 
Constitution of the United States, 

19. 
Consubstantiation, 175, 181. 
Corinth, church at, 28, 31. 
Cornelius, 25. 
Council of Carthage, 76. 



Council of Jerusalem, 69, 199. 

of Ravenna, 143. 

of Trent, 82. 
Covenant of Christian Church, 49. 

of so-called Jewish Church, 50. 
Crawford, Dr. N. M., 230. 
Cressy, the monks of, 143. 
Crispus, 28. 
Cummins, Bishop, 163. 
Cyprian, 77, 78. 

D. 

Daniel, 45, 

Davidson, Dr., 32, 35, 205. 
Deacons, 196. 
Dexter, Dr., 202. 
Diodati, 198. 
Diodorus Siculus, 106. 
Doddridge, Dr., 73, 110, 119. 
Duncan, W. C, D.D., 95 (note). 

B. 

Edward VI., 143, 144. 
Elizabeth, Queen, 140, 144. 
Erasmus, 75, 76, 198. 
Ernesti, 110. 

Ethiopian eunuch, baptism of, 24, 
129. 

P 
Fidus, 77. 
Fonts, use of, 141. 
Fuller, Andrew, 204 (note). 
Fuller, J. G., 172 (note). 
Fuller, Dr. Richard, 230. 

G. 

Greek prepositions, 130, 147. 
Gregory the Great, Pope, 150. 
Griffin, Dr. E. D., 172. 



Hackett, Dr. Horatio B., 230, 



INDEX. 



235 



Hagar a type of the so-called Jew- 
ish Church, 58. 

Harrison on Greek prepositions, 
147. 

Henry, 81. 

Heraclides Ponticus, 106. 

Herod, 108, 126. 

Hibbard, Dr., 39, 41, 47. 

Hippocrates, 106. 

Hodge, Dr. Charles, 41, 42, 50, 53, 
64, 111, 161, 219. 

Household baptism among Karens 
in Burmah, 29. 

I. 

Irenseus, 72, 73, 74, 79. 



Jailer, the, of Philippi, 27. 
James I., 148. 

his rules to translators, 91. 
Jefferson, Thomas, 213. 
Jerome, or Hierom, 75. 
Jewish Church, so-called, 39. 
John the Baptist, 13, 15, 16, 44, 46, 

47, 124, 148, 
Johnson, Samuel, 97, 136. 
Josephus, 107. 

Judd, Rev. Willard, 137, 138 (note). 
Judson, Adoniram, 202 (note), 230. 

K. 

Krauth, Dr., 162. 
Knox, John, 143. 

L. 
Lee, General R. E., 230. 
Liddell & Scott, 94, 95. 
Lightfoot, Dr., 122. 
Lord's Supper, observance of, 174- 

182. 
Lucian, 108, 109. 



Luther, Martin, 81. 
Lydia, 25-27. 

M. 
Maclaine, 137 (note). 
Macknight, Dr., 119, 155, 205, 
Mary, Queen, 140, 143. 
Melanchthon, 161. 
Miller, Dr. Samuel, 40, 63, 65, 81, 

124, 125, 126, 127, 137. 
Milton, 97. 
Monica., 78. 
Moses, law to, cannot affect the 

Saviour's command, 38. 
Mosheim, 137, 208, 210. 

N. 

Neander, 37, 77, 78, 137, 138, 210. 

Nebuchadnezzar's dream, 45. 

Nero, 212. 

Newton, Dr. Richard, 163, 164. 

Noah, 19. 

Noel, Rev. Baptist TV., 230. 

North British RevieWy 71. 

Noyes, Dr., 32. 



Old Testament, no authority for 

infant baptism in, 38. 
Old Version of Scriptures, 91. 
Origen, 74, 75, 76. 



Palmer, Dr. Ray, 203. 
Paul on baptism, 14, 26, 28, 30, 33, 
35, 37. 
on the covenants, 50, 51, 52, 
56. 
Peck, J. M., D. D., 187. 
Pentecost, no infant baptism on the 

day of, 21. 
Pepin, 142. 
Peter, 22, 23, 25, 35, 54. 



236 



INDEX. 



Philip, 24, 129. 

Pindar, 105, 106, 109. 

Plutarch, 108. 

Pringle, Kev. William, 133. 

B. 

Regeneration, 12. 

baptismal, 160, 164. 
Rice, Dr. Luther, 230. 
Rice, Dr. N. L., 41, 64, 126, 149. 
Ripley, Dr., H. J., 172 (note). 
Robinson, Dr. Edward, 121, 149. 
Rufinus, 75, 76. 

S. 

Sarah, type of the Christian Church, 

58. 
Saul of Tarsus, baptism of, 151. 
Silas, 27, 

Stanley, Dean, 102, 144, 145, 157. 
Stephanas, 28, 37. 
Stephen IL, Pope, 142, 143. 
Stuart, Professor Moses, 37, 93, 102, 

104, 105, 108, 139. 
Storrs, Dr. R. S., 203. 
Strabo, 107. 



Summers, Dr. Thomas 0., 49, 50, 
53, 64, 81, 130, 131. 

T. 

Taylor, Dr. William M., 203. 
TertuUian, 74, 100. 
Timon, 108. 

Transubstantiation, 175, 181. 
Tyndale, William, 116, 197. 

W. 
Wall, Dr., 37, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 

93, 119, 140, 141. 
Walker, Mr., 140. 
Watson, Richard, 111 (note), 112, 

156, 157. 
Webster, Daniel, 60, 97. 
Wesley, John, 81, 119, 136. 
Westminster Confession, 38. 
Whately, Archbishop, 209, 210. 
Whitby, Dr., 93. 
Whitefield, 119. 
Winer, 73. 
Woods, Dr., 37. 
Worcester, 97. 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURES. 



GENESIS. PAGE 

3:15 51 

12 :3 52 

17 52 

17 : 11 53 

22 : 18 52 

NUMBERS. 
31 : 23 155 

2 KINGS. 
4 77 

PSALMS. 
77:17 154 

PROVERBS. 
8:4 23 

ISAIAH. 

2:2 44 

8 : 20 210 

JEREMIAH. 
31 : 31-34. 56 

DANIEL. 
2:44 45 

MATTHEW. 

2 : 11-14, 20-22 130 

3:2 46 



PAGE 

3 : 9 60 

3 : 11 100 

5 : 19 13 

8: 31-33 131 

9:17 - 131 

16: 18 45 

18 : 15-17 206 

18 : 17 193 

19 :13 16 

21:43 30 

23 : 13 49 

25 :46 131 

27:25 61 

28 : 18,19,20 78 

33 :21 13,189 

MARK. 

1:15 46 

9 :22 131 

16: 15,16 18 

LUKE. 

1 : 39 151 

12: 50 110 

15 : 18 151 

15 :20 152 

16 : 16 46 

24:46, 47 18 

JOHN. 

1:11 30 

237 



238 



INDEX OF SCEIPTUBES. 



PAGE 

3: 7 48 

3:22,23 133 

3 :23 124,127 

3 :2&', 4: 1,2 15 

4; 1 48 

ACTS. 

1 :3 189 

2 : 38 117 

2 :38,39 22 

2:41 23 

2 :47 61 

6:4 200 

6 ...196 

7 : 38 41, 43, 44 

8 : 38 122, 133 

8 : 38, 39 129 

9 : 18 151,152 

9: 39 152 

10 :47 152 

11 :22 200 

11 :29, 30 200 

13 : 1-3 200 (note) 

14:23 197 

14 : 26, 27 200 (note) 

15 69, 199 

16 27 

16 : 13, 14, 15. 25 

16 : 30-34 153 

18 : 8 28 

19 :4 14 

19 : 32,41 42 

20 :28 183 

21 : 17-25 70 

22 : 16 117 

ROMANS. 

1 :7 .190 

4:2 56 

4: 11 53 

6 136 



PAGE 

6:2,3 34 

6 : 3, 4, 5 114 

6 :3-7 115 

6:4 ...138,152 

10 : 17 24 

11 30 

11:19,20 31 

14: 1..., .......190 

1 CORINTHIANS. 

1 : 16 28 

1 :24 23 

5 : 1-5 191 

7: 14 31 

10 : 2 155 

10 : 17 181 

11 :26 181 

11 : 20-34 175 

15 : 3,4 114 

15 : 29 34, 118 

16: 1,2 200 

16 : 3 200 (note) 

16 : 15 28 

2 CORINTHIANS. 

2: 6 205 

2 : 6-8 193 

8 : 18, 19 200 (note) 

8 : 19 198 

9 : 7 = 200 

15:29 118 

GALATIANS. 

3 : 7,29 56 

3 : 14.. 31 

3 : 16 52 

3 : 17 51 

3 :27 34 

4: 22-31 58 

5 :2 71 

5:12 192 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURES. 
EPHESIANS. 



239 



PAGE 

1 :13 54 

2 : 15 62 

4: 5 113 

4: 30 54 

PHILIPPIANS. 
2 : 25; 4 : 18 200 (note) 

COLOSSIANS. 

2 136 

2; 12 .34,114,138 

2 THESSALONIANS. 
3: 6 191,193 

1 TIMOTHY. 



6: 12. 



34 



2 TIMOTHY. PAGE 
3 :16,17 210 



HEBREWS. 



1 
8 
8 
8 
9 
10 



1,2., 
6 

8-12 



10. 
22. 



45 

57 

, 56 

55 

155 

, 35 



1 PETER. 
3:21 35,114 

1 JOHN. 
2:20 223 



THE END. 



(itGi-i ' 



^^in^^ 






■>.-2» -■*■ -h- 4''-- ' • • - : 



i» • ^ 



^^^^i' 




t'^ *•■• V.' -„ 



. 1 



'.■jt^*:' 






1%.,: 






, •H* 


r 


/, ii 


l> 


\^ 




- 4: 


v^ 


^ 


^ 




^ 



<•''>•> ^-v' 



